Highlighting affective intensity

In constructing oppositional actions, participants need to make some sort of statement that displays a stance toward the antecedent action or event (Maynard 1985b). In addition, the speaker's stance must be recognizably disaffiliative with that action, thereby constructing its problematic or arguable status. Although this should suffice as a basic criterion for an oppositional action, participants also need to deal with the issue of significance – that is, with the scope of the disputability of the action(s) rendered as problematic. To this end, speakers frequently display what Bradac et al. 1995 and M. Goodwin 1998 label affective intensity. Such displays then become important issues for the recipients of talk, and their responses are of crucial value for the ensuing interaction. For instance, displaying increased affective intensity may result in a transformation of the entire exchange from playful teasing and mocking to serious opposition between the parties involved, as in ex. (1):

Upon Magdalena's statement that her essay is not to be found among the others, Cheryl picks up an essay, lifts it up triumphantly above her head, and announces laughingly that it belongs to Magdalena. In line 3, Magdalena denies this to be true, and Cheryl points out that her friend's name (Magdalena H.) is on the cover. Magdalena counters this by claiming that the initial letter H stands for “Hasselblad,” which by implication is not her name. As this claim is in turn challenged by Ebba, who points out that there is no one with that name in the class (line 6), Cheryl repeats her statement that the essay belongs to Magdalena and shows it to the camera (line 7).

This last action is immediately opposed by Magdalena, who is no longer denying authorship but simply demands that Cheryl put the essay down. Indeed, denying authorship at this point might undermine her right to make such demands. We should note that – in contrast to her previous turns, which were produced in a playful manner (mocking voice and laughter) – Magdalena's demand at line 8 shows no signs of mockery or joking. Moreover, it is produced in English, and it may be argued that Magdalena's divergence from the language spoken previously is a way of increasing the intensity of her demand as well as showing her disalignment with the playful tone of the previous exchange; that is, she is orienting to the serious turn that this exchange has now taken. In the subsequent turn, Ebba aligns with Magdalena's language choice, as well as social stance, and she accuses Cheryl of being childish, or even babish. In other words, Ebba's actions provide further evidence for the reorientation of the exchange to that of a seriously adversative interaction. However, when Magdalena subsequently points to an essay, stating that it belongs to Cherrie, Ebba temporarily puts an end to this exchange, suggesting instead that they check out her own essay.

To summarize, the excerpt above shows how code-switching may be used to display affective intensity and how such displays may serve to reorient participants' actions in playfully oppositional exchanges to a state of serious disaffiliation. However, displays of affective intensity like those above do not always turn playful mockery into disputes. Our second example shows how children, in opposing coparticipants' prior actions, may cast those actions as either significantly problematic or ‘problematic in principle’ but contingently ignorable, and how displays of affective intensity may serve as a pre-closure of the opposing exchange. It also provides a more complex instance of children's use of code-switching in displaying and managing opposing stances.

In this episode, Cheryl opposes Magdalena's and Ebba's joint presentation of her work (line 5). However, her opposition is embedded in laughter, and we can see the other two girls disattending to her objection. Instead, Magdalena picks up the format of staged presentation to the camera, asserting that she has not written anything herself because she would not be allowed to write about blood. Her production of the word BLO::D dramatizes her performance, and the staged drama is immediately picked up by Ebba in line 9, who pretends to be horrified by the very sight of blood (which Magdalena is painting just in front of her, on a piece of paper). Capturing Cheryl's attention (titta ‘look’), she then animates her performance by holding up her “wounded” hand, whining nä:: ‘no’. Unable to keep a straight face (possibly because of Ebba's explosive laughter, line 12), however, she ends the performance laughing. Lines 11 through 13, thus, show a shared laughing sequence, during which Cheryl produces some object (off camera) out of Magdalena's box, announcing that she also has something to show in public (titta).

At this point, Magdalena has already left her chair, rushing over to Cheryl and forbidding her to touch her things (line 14). We may note that Magdalena's protest in line 14 strongly contrasts with the joyful laughter of the preceding lines, and that she employs an array of techniques to highlight her opposition. First, we can see her drop out of the laughing sequence already at line 11, after having discovered Cheryl tampering with her box. Second, latching on to Cheryl's announcement, she produces a prosodically marked (intonation, emphasis, and vowel elongation) expression of polarity which works as a token of opposition, or opposing preface (cf. M. Goodwin 1990), immediately responding to Cheryl's actions. Third, the second part of this turn can be seen to expand the initial opposition, specifying the action being opposed, and, by this token, suggesting its remedy (to leave Magdalena's things alone). Fourth, in this part of her turn, Magdalena switches to English, thereby diverging from the language of preceding speech, including the preface, and she thus creates a turn-internal linguistic contrast (line 14). I would suggest that such a contrast might serve to highlight the oppositional stance toward the antecedent action by stressing its affective intensity. The intonational contour in this part of the turn, along with the emphatic stress and vowel elongation on mi:ne, supports this claim by suggesting that it is an elaboration of the prefaced opposition rather than a defensive accounting for it.

Now, we can see in line 15 that Cheryl receives Magdalena's protest with laughter, which is then transformed into an account pointing out that she did only what Magdalena has done to her. Thus, she invokes Magdalena's prior actions (lines 1 and 2), through which she allowed Ebba to show Cheryl's paper to the camera. Since she does this as a way of responding to Magdalena's protest, instead of complying with it, she displays her stance against Magdalena's demand, ratifying the social opposition between the two girls. Although it may be argued that Cheryl's laughter serves as a preface, contextualizing her turn as nonserious or mocking, Magdalena certainly does not attend to these aspects, simply demanding her possession back in line 16 (〉give me that〈). The flat intonation and increased speed of her demand strongly contrast with Cheryl's previous turn, which was produced in a playful mode. The contrast created here clearly gives the impression that Magdalena is not joking at all. Yet in the second part of this turn, Magdalena provides an account for her demand: that the object in question is fragile. Simultaneously, she code-switches into Swedish and into a notably milder tone of voice. As we will see below, this turn accomplishes rather diverse interactional work, and I wish to suggest at this point that the turn-internal contrast reflects the diversity of these interactive projects.

In terms of stance, we might claim that the contrast set up by the beginning of Magdalena's turn maintains the social opposition between the two girls (as opposed to, say, if Magdalena had burst out laughing, which might have terminated the dispute). On the other hand, her subsequent account, in combination with the code-switch and shift in tone of voice, may display an attempt to close the dispute. In fact, this seems to be Cheryl's interpretation (line 18), since she complies with the demand, handing over Magdalena's belongings. But let us take a closer look at the production of this turn, which provides a clear illustration of the local organizational sensitivity of code-switching.

Cheryl's response in line 18 begins with a prosodically highlighted response cry, ↑o:jdå, which I suggest serves as a “change of state” token (Heritage 1984b), by which Cheryl begins to change her stance toward the issue being argued. Using this token, she also ratifies Magdalena's prior account as an attempt to terminate the adversative exchange. Another way of treating this conversational object is as a turn preface, which, in this particular case, works as a pre-closure of the dispute. The final closure follows after a hesitation sound, as she hands over the demanded object to Magdalena with an affiliative〉here you are〈. Note that, just as the preface responded to the last part of the previous turn, by virtue of its placement in adjacent position, the last part of Cheryl's turn – the dispute closure proper – is directly responsive to the demand part of the prior turn. In short, we have here two sets of corresponding turn components, accomplishing two sets of corresponding actions, as follows:

These pairs interrelate at various levels. The contributions in the second pair are sequentially adjacent,³

and they are produced in accordance with the preference for same-language talk (Auer 1984; see Cromdal 2001 for an account of this preference in the same school setting). In contrast, the first pair comprises clearly paired actions (request/demand – compliance), and such pairs tend to be positioned in adjacency (e.g., Sacks 1992, vol. 10, 1987; Sacks et al. 1974; Schegloff 1972). Although this is not possible in the present case, for reasons mentioned above, by code-switching into English and accelerating her speech in line 18 Cheryl produces her compliance (the delayed second pair part) through a variant of “format tying” (M. Goodwin 1990), compensating in a sense for the lack of adjacency.⁴

To sum up parts of the discussion of (2), it was suggested that the three code-switches (lines 14, 16, and 18) may be seen as the two girls' methods of accomplishing different interactional tasks. Magdalena's switch into English in line 14 creates a turn-internal contrast that seems to highlight the affective intensity of the oppositional stance taken toward her friend; the switch in line 16 exploits the same mechanism (turn-internal contrast), but it seems to accomplish the opposite work in terms of social stance – it seems to downplay the affective intensity of Magdalena's demand. Note that both switches are sequentially implicative: The one in line 14 results in an English response, and the one in line 16 is followed by a third code-switch, produced by Cheryl. Along with an array of prosodic features, the last code-switch illustrates particularly clearly the local sensitivity of the girls' actions. The discussion below will further demonstrate children's use of code-switching in managing social opposition.

Escalating social opposition: A peaking device

The transcripts above show two initially playful activities which turned into brief adversative exchanges. In extended dispute sequences, oppositional stances are more elaborated – that is, they are escalated or downplayed through step-by-step coordination of turns. Consider (3), taken from a 40-minute episode of koja play⁵

in which a second-grade boy, Gustav, enters his classmates' koja without asking permission.

We can see that Gustav's entry into the girls' koja is treated as an illicit action and constitutes the event antecedent to the ensuing dispute. Kajsa's response cry (Goffman 1981) HEY displays her instant opposition to the boy's entry, followed by an explication of the matter, you don't get up here. Also, the affective intensity of her oppositional stance is immediately upgraded by her prosodically marked command NE::R (DO::WN), for which she code-switches into Swedish. In response to Gustav's clearly noncompliant laughter (line 3), Kajsa again increases the strength of her stance with an expression of polarity (↑NO::). Note that this action is produced using roughly the same prosody as in her previous utterance; this time, however, she switches back to English. Disattending Kajsa's strongly affective stance, Gustav calmly produces what seems to be the beginning of an account for his presence in the koja (lines 3–4). Arguably, this is also Kajsa's projection of his turn, and she makes it quite clear that she is not interested in accepting Gustav's reasons for entering or remaining in the koja, as she takes a new turn in the midst of Gustav's account, shouting at him to get down (line 4). Upon Gustav's relatively mild protest in line 6, she immediately repeats her order in compressed form, stamping on Gustav's foot as she shouts out the second DOWN in line 5. By giving up the opportunity for a less hostile continuation of the exchange, she orients toward a clearly adversative form of interaction. Note also that her antagonism pertains not only to Gustav's physical presence in the koja, as displayed by her words and physical force, but also to the boy's right to participate verbally, as displayed through the overlapping onset of her turn in line 5.

Unmistakably, this escalates the social opposition between the two of them, which is evidenced by Gustav's declaration that he knows many ways to enter the koja (line 8). In contrast to his previous turn, where he did not overtly oppose Kajsa's strong reaction, his current declaration disqualifies Kajsa's moves, casting her opposition as irrelevant: Although she may well succeed in forcing him to leave now, he knows plenty of ways to climb back in. Of course, it is possible that such an action may be received as a threat or a tease, or possibly both. It seems difficult as well as unnecessary, however, to engage in such guessing; suffice it to note that Kajsa's responses bear witness to Gustav's success in escalating the conflict.

In line 9, Kajsa switches to Swedish, starting her turn with the formulaic opposition marker mähallå (i.e., men hallå)⁶

and repeating, in the later part of the turn, her demand that Gustav climb down from the koja. One important feature of the turn preface men hallå is its imprecision; it leaves no clues as to what specific previous action is being opposed. Rather, it serves to disqualify completely the opponent's stance in the exchange. Having accomplished this, Kajsa then repeats her command using multiple prosodic cues (pitch, emphasis, and amplitude) to display her annoyance. The emphatic stress in her command is coordinated with nonverbal actions, the most notable one being her poking Gustav's nose with her index finger. Thus, the format of her action is that of words backed up by physical violence. This is also the case in the immediately preceding sequence in lines 5 through 7. What is strikingly different in the second occurrence (apart from the specifics of the physical abuse, which might be seen as successively escalated) is the language of her command. I suggest, then, that by means of the code-switch into Swedish in line 9, Kajsa creates yet another opposition between herself and Gustav. Up to this point, the exchange in (3) may be seen as a stepwise escalation of conflict in which oppositions are set up cumulatively, and the local availability of two languages allows Kajsa to add an additional layer of contrast between herself and her opponent.

Another aspect of Kajsa's strongly aggravated turn in line 9 is that it solicits collaboration from another koja team player, Beatrice, who demands from Gustav the password to the koja. This is clearly a different way – and arguably a more cooperative one – of dealing with Gustav's illegitimate presence in the koja. Rather than demanding the boy's immediate exit, it provides him with an (at least theoretical) opportunity to bid for a stay in the koja. Kajsa immediately picks up this format of argument (line 11), and the strongly adversative exchange is thus brought to an end. In other words, Beatrice's turn in line 10 initiates an oppositional “backdown” following upon the peak of the dispute in line 9. Nonetheless, the girls are still collaborating toward the initial goal of evicting Gustav from the koja.

Let us briefly consider an exchange from a later phase of the same play episode, in which Gustav has entered the koja for a second time:

As Gustav enters the koja, picking up a stick from the koja floor, Kajsa immediately opposes his actions (↑no:) and takes hold of the stick. Smiling, Gustav lets go of the stick in a way that makes it look like a cooperative gesture. His actions show the ease and confidence one might expect from a member of the koja team, not from an intruder. There is reason to believe, however, that Kajsa does not object merely to Gustav's possession of a stick but to his presence in the koja in the first place. Clearly, Gustav's actions violate the team members' expectations, as evidenced by Magdalena's brutal attack. Obviously, in this situation there is no need for negotiation that might resolve or successively upgrade the conflict – they have all been through this just recently (3) – and Magdalena yells at the boy in Swedish to get down, hitting him on the head at the same time. Notably, there is no follow up on this exchange, as the focus of attention shifts to William, who is on his way up to the koja. In other words, there is very little oppositional work preceding Magdalena's attack here, and this peak of the conflict also serves as its suspension.

Let us turn now to another example of step-by-step escalation of social opposition, this time involving somewhat more complex patterns of collaboration. Excerpt (5) below is taken from a different koja episode in second grade, in which Beatrice, Jolanta, Kajsa, and Magdalena represent the koja team, and Abbe is trying to sell some moss, which the girls sometimes use to furnish parts of the interior of their koja.

The transcript above presents at least two discernible, but closely intertwined and analytically inseparable, activities: the negotiative transaction of goods (moss) between a member of the koja team and an outsider, on the one hand, and a dispute evolving within the koja team, on the other. The analytical inseparability of the two activities is readily evident in the forms of participation revealed in lines 3 through 7, where the two girls contrastively match their opposing positions (Coulter 1990) but do so through a third party, Abbe. That is, each of the girls' turns is produced to the effect of opposing the other, but none of these turns is allocated directly to its opponent. Thus, in terms of participation frameworks (Goffman 1981), the two opponents are cast as ratified but unaddressed participants.

Because this format may seem a rather convenient way of managing disagreement, especially if approached from the perspective of participants' face needs (Goffman 1967), we may ask why this is so. Let us therefore consider the sequential features of the interaction accomplished in lines 3 through 7. In line 3, Magdalena intercepts the exchange between Abbe and Jolanta, declaring that they (the koja team) do not want any moss. As Abbe fails to respond immediately – perhaps owing to the changed participant constellation, with Magdalena joining the exchange – Jolanta declares that they in fact do need moss. She thus shows an explicitly opposing stance in relation to Magdalena, without addressing her opponent. When Abbe's delayed response to Magdalena finally emerges, it does so as a canonical repetition of Jolanta's utterance, and the effect is that of a displayed alliance between the two participants in favor of a deal. The sequential implicativeness (Schegloff & Sacks 1973) of Abbe's turn is that the next turn, Magdalena's response, is heard as a response to Abbe. And indeed, Magdalena directs her speech to Abbe, as evidenced by her bodily posture and gaze in line 6. Yet, because of her use of we as representing the entire koja team, the same utterance also opposes Jolanta's stance with regard to this issue, and another opposition between the two girls is displayed. However, Magdalena finishes her turn in overlap with Jolanta, who again claims that they want some of Abbe's moss. Now, to the extent that we can see Jolanta's turn as an indirect (addressed to Abbe) bid for a compromise (accepting some of the moss originally agreed upon), we may conclude that it is rejected in line 9 by Magdalena, who abandons the previous format of opposition (conducted via Abbe), allocating an emphatically disagreeing turn directly to her opponent.

Note, however, that the terminal onset of Jolanta's turn in line 7 secures the sequential position in which Abbe's response would be expected. Here, just as in line 4, Jolanta uses a sequential placement technique that Goodwin & Goodwin 1990 label “piggybacking,”: She places her oppositional turns in the interstices of the exchange between Abbe and Magdalena. The interactional upshot of this is as follows. The sequential implicativeness of Magdalena's turns is spoiled, at least in part, by Jolanta's systematic oppositions, which precede Abbe's responses. Furthermore, owing to the alliance between Abbe and Jolanta on the issue of the moss, Abbe's sequentially delayed responses are produced in concert with Jolanta's utterances, as in lines 4–5. Thus, the allocation of Magdalena's opposition directly to Jolanta (line 9) is organizationally sensitive, allowing her, too, a way out of a troublesome participation format.

At this point, when Abbe is no longer an addressed party in the exchange between Magdalena and Jolanta, he turns to the approaching girls, offering some moss (line 10). Their response is produced collaboratively, with Kajsa seconding, or more precisely echoing, Beatrice's rejection. Here, Jolanta turns to the two girls with a pleading yes, downplaying the adversative features of the exchange. Considering the relatively cooperative form of this move, Kajsa's shouting NO:: in line 14 appears rather aggravated, stressing instead the disagreement between the parties. Jolanta then swiftly turns to look at Beatrice, repeating her plea by reduplication (which partly overlaps with, and opposes, Kajsa's preceding rejection), and she also provides an account for her position. The nature of Jolanta's account – that the koja needs better moss – suggests that Jolanta has interpreted the two girls' rejections (lines 11–12) as reflecting the fact that there is already enough moss in the koja. This is where Magdalena reenters the exchange, forcefully opposing Jolanta in partial overlap with the second yes. In addition, she projects Jolanta's account in progress and starts to respond prior to its completion. The resulting overlap is resolved by Jolanta, who drops out in mid-turn. Magdalena's rejection of Jolanta's account is in turn overlapped by Beatrice, who produces an expanded version of Magdalena's rejection (lines 17–18), asserting that they cannot cover the stuff with moss.⁷

Let us consider the interactional achievement of Magdalena's and Beatrice's concerted collaboration. It has already been suggested that Jolanta's account (line 15) displays a specific understanding of Beatrice's and Kajsa's rejection of Abbe's offer. Now, what the turns at lines 16 through 18 do is as follows: (i) They orient to that specific understanding of prior talk partly by (ii) projecting the unfinished part of Kajsa's account, cover the stuff with moss; and (iii) they reject both (i) and (ii). In other words, by stating that no moss can be used to cover the stuff, they reject Jolanta's rationale for wanting the moss in the first place. This is the very peak of the entire dispute in (5), and we should note that the collaborative rejection of Jolanta's account is produced in Swedish; that is, it diverges from the preceding talk. Indeed, in line 19 Magdalena switches back to English, and I wish to suggest that this, along with a much friendlier voice, serves to downplay the opposition built up in the preceding turns. In fact, this is the last oppositional turn of this dispute, and the pause in line 20 marks the end of the argumentative format of the interaction. Thus, in line 21, we see Jolanta turning to Abbe, declaring that the koja team does not want the moss in the end, which seals the alignment between her and the other team members.

Summing up the discussion so far, I suggested in the previous sections that code-switching may be used to highlight affective intensity and to escalate social opposition between opponents. This is done by means of linguistic contrast, either in relation to previous talk (between turns) or, as in the case of intraturn switches, within a single turn. In addition, (3) and (5) have shown that in extended disputes – in which social opposition is constructed through extended series (Jefferson & Shenkein 1978) of recycled conflicting positions, or in a stepwise fashion through successive escalations of opposition – code-switching may contribute to creating the climax of an argumentative exchange by adding another layer of contrast between the opponents. In such locations, we may see code-switching as what might be called a peaking device, since such turns are typically followed by a switch back into the language originally established for the exchange, either commencing an oppositional step-down sequence or promptly terminating the dispute. Somewhat similar observations on “topping” an argument through code-switching have been reported by Gal 1979 in a German/Hungarian language setting, as well as by Mashler 1994, who shows how Israeli-American women use code-switching as a “climactic strategy” when negotiating social contrast.

The next section is devoted to a single instance of adversative interaction, in which the oppositional peak and its related code-switch have particularly significant consequences for one interlocutor's continuing participation in the exchange.

Limiting opponents' argumentational resources

In the excerpts above, instances of code-switching have been discussed in terms of their implications for the organization of children's oppositional and often competitive actions. Borrowing a term from Auer (1984), they were instances of “discourse-related” code-switching. Such switches derive their contextualizing value from the linguistic contrast they set up against prior talk. Besides these discourse-organizing aspects, participants may also use code-switching to provide cues related to their own or their coparticipants' language preferences. In such cases, we may speak of “participant-related” switching (Auer 1984).⁸

For instance, participants may code-switch to display a personal preference for a specific language, thus opening a language negotiation sequence. In the present material, however, it is hard to find clear-cut instances of participant-related switches. Rather, switches clearly relating to participants' individual language preferences tend also to have implications for the organization of interaction, resulting in what Auer (1984) calls the “polyvalent meaning” of code-switching. The transcript below, taken from another koja episode, provides an example:

Following upon Steven's dropping his stick, Jolanta teasingly announces that she is grateful for his gift. Steven's countering move, threatening to report her theft to the teacher, reveals his interpretation of Jolanta's turn as a tease, as well as his orientation toward an adversative continuation of the exchange. Indeed, the three of them all seem to share this orientation, as is made clear by Magdalena's projection of the final part of Steven's utterance: She responds by teasing him for being a tattletale, before he has had a chance to express any intention of tattling. Steven's response in line 4 sharply contrasts with Magdalena's melodious tease; he forcefully orders the girls to return the stick, his voice showing unmistakable signs of annoyance.

We can see that in lines 1–4, the girls have produced two separate teases, each one exploiting a different action by Steven: Jolanta teases him for dropping his stick, and Magdalena picks up on his threat produced in response to Jolanta's tease. Children clearly may respond to teases in a variety of ways (Tholander 2002a), but Steven chooses to respond to the first tease with a threat, and to the second one with a vocally upgraded demand. In other words, this is a short sequence of multiple participants shaping and coordinating actions so as to maintain, and possibly even upgrade, the state of opposition.

At this point, Jolanta's comment that the boys usually tease the girls for tattling (line 5) works as an implicit offer of collaboration (Maynard 1986) to the other girl, in that it picks up on an issue introduced by Magdalena in line 3. Moreover, since this will prove to be relevant later in the same exchange, it can be noted that Jolanta now introduces the issue of gender. Specifically, she points to a gendered practice of teasing. After a second's pause, Magdalena picks up a new and more cooperative line of action, producing what looks like the first part of a negotiation. At the same time, she makes it clear that the girls wish to be left alone. It could also be suggested that the shape of this turn, casting both girls as a team, explicitly acknowledges the alignment that Jolanta was bidding for in line 5. Now in line 9, Jolanta again picks up the theme introduced by Magdalena (line 7), specifying the concrete meaning of the girls' request to be left alone.

It seems that this collaborative work by the girls (lines 5–9) provides a clear opportunity for less aggravated talk by downplaying the oppositional stances between the parties. In line 10, however, Steven explicitly rejects the option of some sort of settlement, orienting instead toward a continuation of the dispute. Indeed, he starts his turn with a threat (I can do worse, if I want), and finishes off with an emphasized command for the girls to return the stick. He is thus producing types of action similar to those in lines 2 and 4, only this time they are merged into one turn. Considering the type of talk that this turn responds to, it works to escalate the social opposition between the two parties. Interestingly, this is evident only in Magdalena's turn at line 13, where she returns to the adversary exchange, simultaneously preventing Jolanta from handing over the stick. It seems that, rather than ratifying the escalation in lines 11–12, Jolanta attempted to pursue their joint project of negotiating a settlement. However, Magdalena's turn in lines 13–14 accomplishes further important actions. For one thing, it produces what looks like a tease directed at Steven, thus ratifying the new state of opposing stances. The rationale for viewing lines 13–14 as a potential tease (cf. the next section) may be found in Magdalena's exploitation of general playground regulations known to all children in the school, specifically a rule that prohibits the use of sticks in play.⁹

Recasting the regulation as applying only to boys may then work to produce a gendered tease. Another action worth noting in lines 13–14 is that of soliciting Jolanta's realignment toward the reintroduced adversary interaction, notably accomplished by the turn-final collaboration bid ok↑ey? Jolanta immediately follows suit: Picking up on the reintroduced use of gender categories, she plainly declares that boys are stupid.

Although this may certainly be seen as an attempt to escalate the opposition, we find Steven's turn onset overlapping with Jolanta's utterance at a point where it is not yet possible to project the continuation of the latter utterance. In effect, Steven's response seems to orient to Magdalena's turn in lines 13–14. This is also evident in his seizing on the issue of sticks rather than that of boys being stupid. Although the bulk of Steven's response is produced as a threat (I'll steal all your sticks), it is prefaced by a prosodically marked you ↑kno:w, which is produced in a mockingly melodic tone of voice. I would therefore conclude that Steven's response to Magdalena's utterance is shaped in accordance with an understanding of this utterance as a tease. However, Steven's utterance is immediately opposed by Jolanta, who points out that the girls do not have any sticks, thus disqualifying, in a sense, the relevance of Steven's threat.

To sum up the exchange so far, I have suggested that the participants produced coordinated series of actions that reveal an orientation toward an adversative mode of interaction, exploiting a variety of methods to this end. Notably, Jolanta and Magdalena produced several oppositional moves, built largely on the actions of their opponent, and accomplished partly through collaborative coordination of actions (e.g., picking up on issues introduced by the other, and producing turns in concert), as well as through invoking gender categories for rhetorical purposes to give these actions their teasing potential. On the other hand, Steven seemed to handle these actions mainly by producing threats and vocally upgraded commands. In shaping the threats, Steven invoked various notions of repercussion ranging from (i) informing the teacher of the girls' theft of his stick (line 2), through (ii) threatening to steal it back (line 16), to (iii) threatening to do even worse, leaving the precise nature of the repercussion unstated (line 10).

In responding to Steven's mocking threat (line 16), Magdalena declares in Swedish (line 18) that he cannot have his stick back. The tag fattar du inte de ‘don't you get it’, which follows the announcement, works to solidify the oppositional stance displayed. Moreover, the intonation contour of this utterance, as well as other prosodic features (stress, amplitude, tonal quality), reveals Magdalena's annoyance, signaling this utterance as clearly upgraded in comparison to prior talk. Note also that this co-occurs with her switching to Swedish, which may well emphasize the escalating opposition. As we will soon see, this has implications for the ensuing interaction. Note first that Jolanta immediately ties on to the code-switch (line 20) when repeating Magdalena's statement, displaying a sustained alliance between the two girls on the issue of the stick, as well as on the level of language choice.

Steven's response in line 21 is produced in overlap with Jolanta, and it is hard to hear exactly what he is saying. It is clear, however that he responds in English, and that he is trying to get the girls' attention. Notably, the girls do not attend to his words, and for the first time in this entire exchange, Jolanta turns directly to Magdalena, asking if they should return the stick. She then turns back to Steven, reinitiating her previous line of negotiation: om du lovar ‘if you promise’. Steven's response, still in English, is immediately heckled by Magdalena (line 25), who ties on to almost the precise format (choice of wording, tempo, vowel elongation) of Steven's utterance (cf. M. Goodwin 1990), using a parodying tone of voice.

I suggest that what we (as well as the participants) are dealing with in this part of the exchange (lines 18–24) is an instance of participant-related code-switching, in that the two girls have switched to Steven's dispreferred language. And indeed, in the entire corpus of data, I have no record of Steven speaking Swedish. Steven's utterances (lines 21, 25, and possibly 19) may then be seen as displays of his preference for English. They also demonstrate his attempts to produce locally relevant talk (cf. especially line 23), but most of his turns remain unresponded to. The one response he does get is the copycat heckling in line 25, which Magdalena achieves by temporarily switching back to English. In other words, what the girls achieve by switching to Swedish at this point in the escalating dispute, besides highlighting their opposition (which is fairly clear by now), is to constrain Steven's means of producing continuous oppositional action. What began as a stepwise escalation of a conflict has now turned into a combined dispute and language negotiation sequence in which the girls seem to monopolize the production of oppositional talk. Through these means, which may be seen as a display of conversational dominance (Cromdal 2001), they manage to accomplish a settlement. The Swedish sequence is terminated in line 27 when the girls hand over the stick, announcing that Steven now has to leave. Thus, just as in (2) and (3), the code-switch in line 18 sets off what becomes the peak of the entire episode. The final exchange in lines 29–30, following a significant pause, represents an entirely different focus of activity – an attempt by Steven to join the girls' koja team. Although the attempt fails, lines 29–30 comprise a much more cooperative exchange than the earlier sequences, in that both parties seem to orient minimally toward a joint interactional project, which may be seen in Magdalena's (re)alignment with Steven's preferred language.

But let us make a few further notes in relation to the exchange in lines 18–27. I have claimed that by switching into a language that Steven does not speak (and as his classmates, the girls realize this), the girls violate, and orient to, his preference for English. Thus, we may speak of a participant-related aspect of the code-switch in line 20. However, it has been demonstrated that this switch has enormous implications for the continuing interaction, thus lending the code-switch undisputedly discourse-related function. In other words, the code-switch in line 20 demonstrates the polyvalence of code-switching (Auer 1984).

More important, this exchange illustrates an interactional stance toward bilingual talk according to which bilingualism may be treated as a situated and socially distributed phenomenon – a feature accomplished in interaction. This perspective was introduced by Auer's (1984) seminal work, in which he set out to investigate how participants in talk go about “doing being bilingual” (1984:7). Along these lines, the most interesting point to be made in relation to (6) is not that Steven merely possesses a passive knowledge of Swedish, and that the two girls are more proficient bilinguals. Rather, focusing on the children's interaction, we may note that in the course of their conduct, participants display and orient to individual language preferences by exploiting them to accomplish social actions. In other words, the analysis above suggests that bilingual practices constitute both resources for and results of children's accomplishment of accountable actions in mundane play exchanges.