Pretend Play As Improvisation

Conversation in the Preschool Classroom

R. Keith Sawyer

• Publisher: Psychology Press
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781134799053
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Everyday conversations including gossip, boasting, flirting, teasing, and informative discussions are highly creative, improvised interactions. Children's play is also an important, often improvisational activity. One of the most improvisational games among 3- to 5-year-old children is social pretend play --also called fantasy play, sociodramatic play, or role play. Children's imaginations have free reign during pretend play. Conversations in these play episodes are far more improvisational than the average adult conversation. Because pretend play occurs in a dramatized, fantasy world, it is less constrained by social and physical reality. This book adds to our understanding of preschoolers' pretend play by examining it in the context of a theory of improvisational performance genres. This theory, derived from in-depth analyses of the implicit and explicit rules of theatrical improvisation, proves to generalize to pretend play as well. The two genres share several characteristics:
* There is no script; they are created in the moment.
* There are loose outlines of structure which guide the performance.
* They are collective; no one person decides what will happen.
Because group improvisational genres are collective and unscripted, improvisational creativity is a collective social process. The pretend play literature states that this improvisational behavior is most prevalent during the same years that many other social and cognitive skills are developing. Children between the ages of 3 and 5 begin to develop representations of their own and others' mental states as well as learn to represent and construct narratives. Freudian psychologists and other personality theorists have identified these years as critical in the development of the personality. The author believes that if we can demonstrate that children's improvisational abilities develop during these years--and that their fantasy improvisations become more complex and creative--it might suggest that these social skills are linked to the child's developing ability to improvise with other creative performers.

1

Play and Conversation

In our view a static analysis of discontinuous, stratified levels is unacceptable, whereas the functional dynamism of assimilation and accommodation, while respecting structural variety, makes it possible to trace the evolution towards equilibrium and thus to grasp the specific role of mental life.

—Jean Piaget (1962, p.291)

Many social scientists have used performance as a metaphor for social life. Such metaphors are often associated with the writings of Erving Goffman, whose dramaturgical perspective first appeared in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959). Goffman characterized face-to-face interaction as “interpersonal ritual behavior” (1967, p. 22). He referred to temporary situational definitions as frames, using a term that Bateson originated to characterize pretend play (1955/1972, 1956/1971). A frame provides a way for participants to interpret each other’s actions. Many actions cannot be properly interpreted without understanding that a special frame is in effect. Goffman’s examples included jokes, dreams, mistakes and misunderstandings, deceptions, and theatrical performances. In a staged play, the performers know that their actions are not real actions—the dramatic frame is in effect. Pretend play is also framed: Children understand that their actions are the pretend actions of play characters. In a performance genre such as improvisational theater, performers consciously frame their performance as distinct from normal social life. They all know that they are on stage; the professional conventions of the theater require that the boundary between reality and the dramatic illusion be maintained. Among children at play, the boundary between the play frame and everyday social life is fluid and permeable. Instead of the fourth wall that actors imagine to be between the stage and the audience, there is only a nebulous boundary between fantasy interaction and its ongoing maintenance and regulation.

In recent years, several psychologists have commented on the performative and improvisational nature of children’s pretend play. Some developmental researchers have drawn inspiration from Burke’s dramatism (Burke, 1968, 1969) to conceive of children’s play as performance (Franklin, 1983; Forbes & Yablick, 1984). Singer and Singer (1990) suggested that symbolic social play provides children with a flexibility that allows them to move beyond ritual interaction patterns, toward more improvisational behavior. In the preschool classroom, the improvisations of dramatic pretense mediate this social development. Many other researchers have commented on the improvisational character of children’s interaction. For example, Griffin and Mehan (1981, p. 205) characterized classroom discourse as “spontaneous improvisations on basic patterns of interaction.” In Baker-Sennett’s work, children’s creative planning of a stage play was found to incorporate both explicit and implicit direction; this implicit direction is like improvisational performance, because new script ideas are proposed by a child enacting the new suggestion within the dramatic frame (Baker-Sennett & Matusov, in press; Baker-Sennett, Matusov, & Rogoff, 1992). Rather than being taught this technique, these improvisational strategies of implicit planning emerged spontaneously among the child actors. Many of Corsaro’s analyses focused on the ways that children embellish play routines (e.g., 1992). He argued that most types of embellishment in children’s peer routines are collective rather than personal. They are cooperatively orchestrated acts that result in novel, improvisational performances (1992).

In a classic paper, Schank and Abelson (1977) presented the script model, a performance analogy that has been influential in studies of children’s play. Schank and Abelson compared social action to a script, intentionally invoking the parallel with a dramatic text. They proposed that scripts were mental representations for culturally prototypical action sequences. Developmental psychologists soon picked up on the script metaphor. Applications of the script metaphor to children’s play include Bretherton (1984, 1989), Nelson and Gruendel (1979), Nelson and Seidman (1984), and Goncu (1987). Other theories that propose that actions are structured temporally include Mandler’s event schemas (Mandler, 1979) and the interactional routines of conversation analysis (Peters &Boggs, 1986). Nelson and Gruendel (1979) characterized the script as a shared context:

To sustain a dialogue the participants must each assume a shared topic context within which that dialogue is structured. This shared context determines such things as what is expressed and what is left to inference, the particular answers that follow from a given question, and the particular semantic and syntactic links that will be established between utterances. (p. 76)

Frames and scripts are both static structural descriptions of the play drama, situational definitions that must be shared by children before play can proceed. Because these models emphasize static situational definitions, they may not adequately characterize play sessions in which a stable frame is difficult to identify. The problems with the script model were evident early on: How does one represent variation from a script? How do people know how to react when an odd event happens? Does another script get instantiated? Is a subscript invoked? Bretherton (1989) argued that Schank’s more recent formulation of script theory (1982) was better able to represent such improvisational, embellished schemes, although Schank himself did not work out how individuals could create novel schemas. Bretherton’s interpretation has the effect of making script theory more amenable to improvisation. Many improvisations indeed make use of rehearsed sequences that have a script-like sequential structure. For example, jazz musicians say that they use common melodic patterns, or licks, during improvisational solos (Sawyer, 1992). Conversation analysis has focused on structured interactional routines, and how they are embellished in situated use. But in practice, script models tend to emphasize the structures of social life, and to neglect the improvisational creativity of interaction.

Many key questions remain unaddressed by structural, scriptal models: To what extent is social life structured versus improvised? What is the nature of the structures which guide social action? If they are frames or scripts, what are the mechanisms whereby such social facts become intersubjectively shared? What constraints do structures place on action in specific instances? What opportunities are there for creative variations among similar event sequences? What, in fact, is the definition of “similar”? These questions predate cognitive psychology, because they are new versions of old questions: What is the nature of social action? What is the nature of human experience in the world? Are there static structures (reified, essentialized) or is there simply a never-ending flux of possibilities? Like most cognitive-science theories of the 1970s, script models are based on a structuralist view of the social world, a view that is increasingly difficult to maintain as structuralist theories have been attacked by social science theorists (e.g., Bourdieu, 1977; Cicourel, 1974; Derrida, 1978; Gadamer, 1975; Schutz, 1932/1967). Of course, there is structure to social life; the script metaphor appeals to our common-sense understandings about the world. Of course, there is variation from one script performance to another. There is truth in both: This opposition is one between ideal types.

Some sociolinguists and linguistic anthropologists have approached the issue of social action without invoking script-like event sequences. This approach involves a focus on speech genres, speech styles, and their relationships to the microcontext of interaction. There is a spectrum of genres of interaction in each culture, with each genre considered appropriate for a particular cultural context. Some of these contexts have very structured, scripted styles of interaction associated with them: For example, religious rituals tend to use highly scripted texts. Schank and Abelson’s classic example, the procedures for entering a restaurant, ordering, and eating, is a relatively scripted example of everyday social action. In contrast to these structured situations, many interactional contexts are relatively unstructured. These include gossip, bar and mealtime conversations, and party small talk. In these situations, the script model seems less plausible as a model of social action. To understand unstructured interaction, we need a model of improvisation, a theory of how situations become associated with styles, and a way of linking the process of improvisation with its moment-to-moment structure.

This chapter explores different ways of discussing these issues in children’s play, and discusses theories of adult conversation that might help us resolve these key issues:

1. When interaction is unscripted, how is it collectively created and maintained? How do children learn to improvise with each other in social play?
2. Does play become more scripted in certain contexts, and more improvisational in others? What is the influence of play context on improvisational processes?

Children’s play often seems quite scripted and stylized. For these types of play, script models can be accurate and informative. Yet equally often, children’s play is a creative, novel improvisation, in that children collectively create and perform a new drama, one which must be considered to be unscripted. Theories that propose that interaction is structured in advance are not able to adequately account for children’s improvisational play.

The Development of Interactional Skills in Children’s Play

Between the ages of 3 and 5, children learn a wide range of cognitive and social skills. Psychologists have found that these are important years for the development of theories of mind (Astington, Harris, & Olson, 1988), the development of the ability to represent and construct narratives (Galda, 1984; Scarlett & Wolf, 1979; Trabasso, Stein, Rodkin, Munger, & Baughn, 1992), the development of social cognition (Shantz, 1983), the development of the personality (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; El’konin, 1969; Lewin, 1935), the development of intersubjectivity (Goncu, 1993a, 1993b), and the development of complex fantasy play (Iwanaga, 1973; Parten, 1932; Smilansky, 1968). This book focuses on play conversations during this same age range. Conversational skills are important components of many of the skills acquired during this period, particularly narrative representation, social cognition, intersubjectivity, and fantasy play.

Children’s relationships with same-age peers during the preschool years seem to contribute to social development independently of relations with the parents (Corsaro, 1985, 1992, 1993; Damon, 1977; Field, 1981; Gottman, 1983; Gottman & Parkhurst, 1980; Guralnick, 1981; Hartup, 1979, 1981, 1983; Howes, 1981, 1983, 1987a, 1987b; Lewis & Rosenblum, 1975; Rogoff, 1990). These studies suggest that children learn some things better with peers than with their parents. Peer play seems to be more improvisational than play with parents, and to involve a more complex blend of improvisational strategies. Play with peers is different from play with adults in many ways (Barker & Wright, 1955; Whiting & Whiting, 1975). The most obvious distinguishing characteristic of peer interaction is the coequal status of the participants. Hartup, who argued this point most forcefully, noted two unique elements in peer interaction (1979): the egalitarian nature of interaction between children of similar ability, and the relative lack of constraints on interaction, because the child’s relationships with adults are constrained both by attachments and hierarchies. Many studies have found that mothers almost never engaged in pretend play with children; mothers tend to observe, rather than participate in, children’s fantasies (Bloch, 1989; Dunn, 1986; Field, 1981; Howes, 1992). They rarely enter the game as full partners. Peer interaction has more negotiation, and it is more improvisationally creative. Fein and Fryer (1995) recently concluded that there is no evidence that mothers contribute to the quality or sophistication of peer play.

One of the primary ways that peer relationships contribute to development is through social pretend play. For example, there are correlations between the amount of peer play and role-taking ability (Connolly & Doyle, 1984; Doyle & Connolly, 1989; Rubin, 1976), general people orientation (Jennings, 1975), cooperation with adults and peers (Singer, 1979), and friendliness and popularity with peers (Black & Hazen, 1990; Connolly & Doyle, 1984; Corsaro, 1985, 1988; Doyle, 1982; Hazen & Black, 1989; Howes, 1987a; Marshall, 1961; Marshall & McCandless, 1957; Rubin & Maioni, 1975; Singer, 1979). In addition to these correlations between the quantity of play and social skills and social context, other studies have found relationships between different styles of play and social context. Children play differently with familiar and nonfamiliar peers (Doyle, Connolly, & Rivest, 1980; Garvey & Hogan, 1973; Gottman & Parkhurst, 1980; Matthews, 1977; Mueller, 1972; Schwarz, 1972); children of high and low sociometric status play differently (Connolly & Doyle, 1984; Hazen & Black, 1989; Marshall, 1961; Rubin & Maioni, 1975); and children who are friends play differently from children who aren’t (Corsaro, 1985; Gottman & Parkhurst, 1980; Howes, 1983). Other factors hypothesized to affect peer play include cultural differences and socioeconomic status. There have been many studies comparing play in different cultures, originating with the Whiting study of six cultures (Whiting & Whiting, 1975) and the cultural-ecological model presented in Whiting (1980). Most of these studies have found no significant differences in the amount, type, or developmental pace of social pretend play. When differences have been found between U.S. groups and other cultures, social peer play tends to be of more importance in the non-American culture. For example, Bloch (1989) conducted a comparative study of 2- to 6-year-olds in midwestern U.S. families and Senegalese families, and found that in both cultures and at all ages, 25% to 30% of waking time was spent in play, and that this play time was evenly split between social and solitary play, with one exception: 5- to 6-year-old Senegalese children engaged almost exclusively in social play. In the U.S. sample, the children played three times as much with peers than with parents; in the Senegalese sample, 94% of the children’s social play was with other children. These results are consistent with the studies previously referenced, that found that U.S. parents rarely engage in pretend play with their children. One of the most important studies of cultural differences in play was Helen Schwartzman’s Transformations: The Anthropology of Children’s Play (1978). Slaughter and Dombrowski (1989) reviewed the cross-cultural work since this 1978 volume. These recent studies have consistently shown the same levels of social pretend play among cultures: Israel and South Africa (Udwin & Shmukler, 1981), United States and Kuwait (Al-Shatti & Johnson, 1984), United States and Puerto Rico (Yawkey & Alverez-Dominques, 1984), and Turkey and Iran (Bower, Ilgaz-Carden, & Noori, 1982). A contrasting set of studies has found that in some cultures, symbolic play either does not exist or exists only in stereotypic forms, and represents a much smaller percentage of children’s activity (Ariel & Sever, 1980; Feitelson, 1977; Feitelson, Weintraub, & Michaeli, 1972; Gaskins & Goncu, 1988; LeVine & LeVine, 1963; Smith, 1977). Making a strong claim that social play is a modern Western phenomenon, Konner (1975), observing !Kung San infants between the ages of 1 and 2 years, found that only 10% of their contacts was with other children. He argued that multiage groups must have been more common for children in the history of mankind, since in small hunter-gatherer bands there aren’t many same-age peers available (defined as ± 3 months). Gaskins and Goncu (1992) found that Mayan children’s play was not like the creative and free-form play of U.S.children. In the Mayan culture, play seemed to be more scripted and less improvisational.

Other studies have explored differences in sociodramatic play as a function of socioeconomic status; perhaps the best-known of these is Smilansky (1968). A prevailing assumption in the literature is that economically disadvantaged children, compared to middle-income children, engage in less frequent and lower quality sociodramatic play, and play that is characteristically unimaginative, repetitive, and simplistic (McLoyd, 1982). McLoyd (1982, 1986) noted a wide variety of problems with this literature, including flawed methodologies, confounding of classroom- and school-related variables, conflicting results, and (particularly important to our study) insufficient consideration of how verbal behavior is affected by socioeconomic class. She concluded that these studies were so heavily flawed that they tell us nothing about social class differences in play. Other researchers (Fein, 1981; Rubin, Fein, & Vandenberg, 1983) have made similar criticisms.¹

The balance of this research suggests that cultural and social class differences in play remain to be identified. A few cultures, including the !Kung San and the Maya, manifest relatively little pretend play; however, such examples seem to be rare. When there are cultural differences, it seems that peer play is more salient in the non-Western culture. The consensus of the literature seems to be that peer play is a key contributor to development in the majority of the world’s cultures, and that it is certainly not limited to industrialized or Western cultures. These studies have demonstrated the importance of peer play, and its near-universal presence during the preschool years. However, such studies have rarely explored the conversational processes through which play interaction contributes to social development. I propose that these relationships are mediated through the collective improvisational processes required to negotiate an intersubjective play frame. This book builds upon these studies by focusing closely on play conversation, and on how conversation varies in different contexts.

Classic Psychological Perspectives on Play

There is a strong tradition in developmental psychology of studying play, extending back to Piaget. Piaget’s method of focusing on developmental stages, developed in the 1920s, is still influential in developmental psychology. All children, it is hypothesized, pass through these stages in the same order. In taxonomies of social play, the stages are usually defined as configurations of children. The most basic division is between solitary play and social play, and some theories identify three or more configurations of social play, based on the nature of the relationships between the play characters. Theories that define developmental stages in terms of the configurations of children are structuralist, and can be contrasted with theories that focus on the interactional processes of play.

Piaget. Drawing on his psychoanalytic training and the semiotic theories of de Saussure (1915/1966), Piaget identified play as critical in the development of symbolic skills. In his first book, The Language and Thought of the Child, he proposed a continuum from egocentric language to adult conversation, in which the child passes through four stages: (a) egocentric talk; (b) collective monologue; (c) collaboration in action, in which the conversation focuses on an activity which the children are doing together, but each child speaks only of his own actions; and (d) collaboration in thought, in which the conversation focuses not on the immediate activity, but on explanations, memories, or the order of events (1923/1955). This highest conversational level is collaborative and intersubjective, and concerns an abstract topic.

Reflecting the influence of both Freud and de Saussure, Piaget’s most involved treatment of play was in the book Play, Dreams, and Imitation in Childhood (1946/1962). Piaget believed that symbolic play was the context for the child’s developing semiotic capacities. He argued that symbolic thought resulted from the tension between two strategies for interacting with the physical world: accommodation and assimilation. In accommodation, the child modifies his behavior and thought to be consistent with his perceptions. The activity Piaget associated with accommodation was imitation. Piaget used terms borrowed from de Saussure in describing imitation...