Peer ecologies for learning how to read: Exhibiting reading, orchestrating participation, and learning over time in bilingual Mexican-American preschoolers’ play enactments of reading to a peer

P o M

A U

a

A R A A

K C E C P M L M

1

s g t ( r s t a t t t l a

B

h 0

Linguistics and Education 41 (2017) 7–19

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Linguistics and Education

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / l i n g e d

eer ecologies for learning how to read: Exhibiting reading, rchestrating participation, and learning over time in bilingual exican-American preschoolers’ play enactments of reading to a peer

my Kyratzis ∗

niversity of California, Santa Barbara, United States

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history: eceived 18 April 2017 ccepted 13 July 2017 vailable online 18 October 2017

eywords: hildren’s peer interactions mergent reading onversation analysis articipation ultilingualism

a b s t r a c t

This study investigates how a friendship dyad of preschool children enrolled in a bilingual Spanish-English Head Start preschool in California, predominantly serving Mexican-American families, enact and orches- trate in play the activity of reading aloud to a peer. It examines how the child leading the reading uses embodied and multimodal resources to exhibit themselves as reading, including using environmental couplings of talk and gesture (C. Goodwin, 2013) and how the peer being read to uses embodied resources to exhibit that they are attending to the reading (Erickson, 2004; Hindmarsh et al., 2011). It also tracks transformations of the children’s publicly visible and embodied knowledge states (C. Goodwin, 1981) across time, specifically, across two episodes of reading spaced several months apart, to illustrate how a “trajectory of knowing-in-interaction,” or learning, (Melander, 2012), can be made visible. The examples contribute to a deeper understanding of the diverse ways in which children use verbal resources, their

earning in interaction ultimodal interaction

bodies and the material environment to accomplish the doing of reading as a public, shared, and mutually accountable activity. The examples also contribute to a deeper understanding of how children learn to act in culturally appropriate ways over time in shared reading activities, including how they “recalibrate” (M.H. Goodwin & Cekaite, 2013) reading action when expected embodied participation frameworks for doing reading are not exhibited from other participants.

© 2017 Published by Elsevier Inc.

. Introduction

According to research on emergent literacy, “children in literate ocieties have been found to have knowledge about written lan- uage long before reading conventionally from print. It is suggested hat they are sorting out oral and written language relationships” Sulzby, 1985:458). According to Sulzby, many children who are ead to frequently by their parents also play at “reading” favorite torybooks themselves; they have been described as “‘teaching hemselves to read’ from favorite storybooks” that is, asking for

favored book “to be read over and over; correcting parents when hey deviated from the text; or attempting to ‘read’ the book to hemselves, to siblings, to dolls, or pets” (Sulzby, 1985:459). From

hese early literacy activities, children come away with a wealth of iteracy skills long before they are actually reading. They develop

sense of story and story language, and come to understand that

∗ Correspondence to: Department of Education, University of California, Santa arbara, CA 93106, United States.

E-mail address: [email protected]

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.07.005 898-5898/© 2017 Published by Elsevier Inc.

pictures carry meaning and support the story (Sulzby, 1985). Many middle-class parents read to their children frequently and encour- age these emergent literacy practices long before the children attend school (Sulzby, 1985).

Exposure to these practices is believed to serve as a founda- tion for engaging in the literacy practices required in U.S. schools. We know from the work of linguistic anthropologists that liter- acy practices such as these described by Sulzby for middle-class parents are ideological, “always embedded in social practices” of a community (Street, 2003:78; see also Heath, 1983, 2015; Avineri & Johnson, 2015; Bhimji, 2005; Zentella, 2005, 2015). Parents from other communities may “spend their time on other, more cultur- ally significant activities” (Gaskins, 1999:50) or for other reasons (e.g., lack of resources) not engage in practices directly reflected in “Maintown” or mainstream U.S. schools (Heath, 1983). But could children learn U.S. school-related practices such as doing reading of favorite picture books from other sources? It has been argued that

peers and siblings are sources of valuable language socialization experiences (Bhimji, 2005; Kyratzis, Tang, & Köymen, 2009). Can young child peers support one another in doing reading of favorite storybooks? With the exception of a small number of studies (e.g.,

8 nd Ed

G a p i

c H p r t c g i t p g t a t a c w s t t p o n o G o t 2 e t m

r s t t i s

2 i

2

b c t a & a a i p d s i p T h

A. Kyratzis / Linguistics a

regory, 2001, who looked at mediation practices in interactions mong child siblings at home), very little is known about peer sup- ort and about what children might learn about reading practices

n real peer and sibling interactions. This study examines how bilingual Spanish-English speaking

hildren of Mexican heritage enrolled in a bilingual Spanish-English ead Start preschool in California practice reading books together, articularly, how they enact and orchestrate in play the activity of eading a book aloud to a peer. This reading activity is modeled for he children by their teacher. After breakfast each day, individual hildren are asked to read books aloud to their peers at their small roupwork table. Although Sulzby refers to such practices as “read- ng,” placing the verb “reading” inside quotation marks to denote he fact that children are not actually decoding written text from the age, for purposes of this paper, as children are engaging in emer- ent literacy practices of linking pictures and symbols on the page o orally dictated story content, I consider these practices as reading nd will henceforth refer to them as such. Like all literacy practices, he practice of reading to peers at the small group table is cultur- lly framed, consistent with the literacy practices of a particular ommunity (Heath, 1983; Ochs & Schieffelin, 2012; Street, 2003), hich in this case, is the community of English-medium public

chool education in California, for which the preschool is preparing he children. The children show agency in that they appropriate his reading activity and enact it among themselves during free lay time (see also de León, this issue). Within these enactments f reading to a peer, the children frame the interaction and sig- al for one another “what it is they are doing now, displaying for thers what constitutes the common scene in front of them” (M.H. oodwin, 1993:160; Goffman, 1974). Children must project their wn understandings of the actions that constitute reading and have hose understandings ratified (or not) (C. Goodwin, 1984, 2000, 010, 2013; M.H. Goodwin, 1990) by other peers. Through these nactments then, children can learn a great deal about what consti- utes reading in their classroom (and in the American school system

ore generally). To understand how the children frame these enactments of

eading to a peer, how the peers ratify reading actions in the equence of interaction, and what the children learn about writ- en language and literacy through participating in these activities, I ake an approach to understanding such cognitive activities which s rooted in conversational analysis, ethnography, and interactional ociolinguistics, and which I review below.

. Exhibiting reading: cognition situated in human nteraction

.1. Participation

The approach which I take to analyzing these child peer- ased reading activities is rooted in recent accounts of situated ognitive activities which have been framed within conversa- ional analysis (C. Goodwin, 1984, 1994, 2000, 2010), ethnography, nd interactional sociolinguistics (Erickson, 1982, 2004; Gumperz

Cook-Gumperz, 2005). Charles Goodwin recommends that an ctivity such as a story-telling (or in the case under study here, the ctivity of one peer reading to another) be viewed as a “multi-party nteractive field” (C. Goodwin, 2006:12) within which “multiple articipants are building in concert with each other the actions that efine and shape their lifeworld” (2000:75). What structures con- titute the reading, story, sentence, etc. are specified, not through

nterviewing, but “through study in detail of the actions [partici- ants] perform as the talk itself emerges” (C. Goodwin, 1984:243). he participants who shape the reading, narrative, etc. include earers as well as speakers (C. Goodwin, 1984, 2015; C. Goodwin &

ucation 41 (2017) 7–19

M.H. Goodwin, 2004; Erickson, 2004), all of whom have “visible cognitive lives” (C. Goodwin, 2015:1). Participants’ understand- ings’ of the activity in progress, and of the stance and alignment they take to that activity, are displayed through their actions. They also hold one another accountable for these actions, which in turn are embedded in the participants’ larger social projects (C. Good- win & M.H. Goodwin, 2004) and help construct the “social and political organization” (M.H. Goodwin, 1990; C. Goodwin, 2015:1) among them. The notion of “participation” (Goodwin & Good- win, 2004), actions exhibiting “forms of involvement performed by parties within evolving structures of talk” (2004:222), captures how these “multi-party interactive fields” (C. Goodwin, 2006) are co-constructed and reflexively emerge in the interaction through the embodied practices of multiple particants. Ethnography can enrich the analysis of participation by providing knowledge of the range of concerns and forms of social organization which are pos- sible for the friendship or peer group in question (Evaldsson, 2007; Goodwin & Kyratzis, 2012; M.H. Goodwin, 1990, 2006).

The interplay of these situated and deeply interactional pro- cesses have been documented in several studies. For example, M.H. Goodwin (1990) has documented how, for a peer group of African-American girls’ in Philadelphia, the content and partic- ipation structures of their extended he-said-she-said narratives were deeply embedded in local social and political processes of the peer group. Similar interactional processes have been docu- mented in other studies of children’s narratives of different sorts, including pretend play and future planning narratives and gos- sip stories (Evaldsson, 2002, 2007; M.H. Goodwin, 2006; Kyratzis, 1999, 2007). Relying on Goffman’s notions of framing and foot- ing (Goffman, 1981) and Goodwin and Goodwin’s constructs of “participation” (2004), I will examine how the activity of one peer reading to another, as a multi-party interactive field, is exhibited, co-constructed, and reflexively emerges in the interaction through the embodied practices of multiple participants, and how these practices are rooted in (and reflexively help constitute) certain forms of alignment (Goffman, 1981) and social political organiza- tion among participants.

2.2. Epistemic ecologies: embodied participation frameworks, objects, and local epistemic identities as knowing and unknowing in interaction

To understand how the activity of one peer reading to another is exhibited and interactionally accomplished, one must con- sider the material environment in which the participants’ reading action emerges, including the embodied participation framework (C. Goodwin, 2013) within which the reading activity occurs. As noted by Charles Goodwin, in collaborative activities such as archaelogists doing excavation and categorization work together, participants “build action by laminating different kinds of meaning- making resources together” (Goodwin, 2013:16). These include: “the mutual orientation of the participants’ bodies toward each other,” language, “hands making environmentally coupled ges- tures,” and other phenomena (e.g., objects, such as dirt) “being intensely scrutinized by the participants as part of the work they are doing together” (2013:16). He termed these environments and embodied participation frameworks “public substrates” (2013) and “ecologies of sign systems” (C. Goodwin, 2006, p. 38). Moreover, as these embodied participation frameworks determine the ways in which participants are positioned with respect to one another in terms of what they can see and know (C. Goodwin, 2010; M.H. Goodwin & C. Goodwin, 2012), he termed these embodied par-

ticipation frameworks “epistemic ecologies” (C. Goodwin, 2013:8, 15–16, 20, 21; 2010). These ecologies or environments are cru- cial, as “cognition emerges through the ongoing and systematic transformation of environments that contain a range of structurally

nd Ed

d (

t o p 2 t o o I c d e c s

p G f s b l l w t ( e d t a

c p i a n t ( w p t t G o o s t s t a o r a c r

u o i a d i G c c

A. Kyratzis / Linguistics a

ifferent kinds of resources that mutually interact with each other” C. Goodwin, 2010:5).

In understanding the “ecology” (Erickson, 2004) surrounding he activity of reading to a peer, one must focus not only on a child r more expert peer who is leading a reading, but also on partici- ants who are recipients of or audience to a reading (Erickson, 2010, 004; C. Goodwin, 1984, 2015). The understandings of novices, rainees and other participants are displayed and monitored not nly through talk, but through their gaze, bodily alignment, and ther multimodal means (Hindmarsh, Reynolds, & Dunne, 2011). n my analysis, I will examine the resources and means by which hildren who are novices to reading and in the role of listeners emonstrate understandings as they are being read to by a (more xpert) peer and how the peer leading the reading modifies their ourse of action to take into account the listener’s displayed under- tanding.

Also central to these situated interactions is the way in which articipants build upon the situated action of one another. Charles oodwin argued for the importance of “the embodied participation

ramework” (Goodwin, 2010:17, 20), which can provide a “public ubstrate,” that is, “a place where diverse semiotic resources can e brought together and accumulated through time into a pub-

ic configuration” (C. Goodwin, 2010:19–20; C. Goodwin, 2013:11), eading to further learning. Within such an “intercorporeal frame-

ork for mutual engagement,” children can build on prior action, hereby “recalibrating” and fine-tuning their attention and action M.H. Goodwin & Cekaite, 2013:136, 130). In my analysis, I will xplore how the embodied participation framework allows chil- ren to create a pubic substrate of shared attention within which hey can build on one another’s embodied action, recalibrate action, nd learn from one another.

Not only are readings, narratives, sentences, etc. themselves onstructed via the multi-party, multimodal, and locally situated ractices described above, but the objects utilized in these activ-

ties are also transformed and constructed in “specific ways that re relevant to the distinctive interests of their particular commu- ity” (C. Goodwin, 2015:33). Archaelogists transform color patterns hat they see in the dirt into “work-relevant discursive objects” Goodwin, 2015:33). Experts “environmentally couple” (C. Good- in, 2013:15, 16; Goodwin, 2010) talk with objects, (e.g., color atterns they see in the dirt), leading novice archaeologists to see he dirt in work-relevant ways, building the “professional vision hat must be mastered” by young members of a profession (C. oodwin, 1994; Goodwin, 2013:20). With regard to literacy devel- pment, Heath (1983) emphasized the importance of the practice f relating two-dimensional representations (e.g., pictures, print) een on the page to three-dimensional objects in the real world and alking about these “displaced objects.” Achieving such a profes- ional vision of what can be seen on the page is therefore essential o becoming a member of the community of classroom readers. My nalysis will illustrate how children use environmental couplings f talk and gesture (Goodwin, 2013) as one type of exhibition of eading, and how these environmental couplings are fine-tuned nd “accumulated” (2013:11) over the sequence of interaction as hildren recalibrate reading action to get the peer to attend to their eading.

Within “epistemic ecologies” (C. Goodwin, 2013) of the type nder discussion here, not only are readings, narratives, sentences, bjects, etc. themselves co-constructed and oriented to in the nteraction via the multi-party, multimodal, spatially and materi- lly configured, publically exhibited, and locally situated practices escribed above, but the local epistemic identities of the partic-

pants as “knowing recipients” and “unknowing recipients” (C. oodwin, 1981; see also C. Goodwin, 2013:12) are also publi- ally exhibited and oriented to in the interaction and become onsequential for that interaction in terms of how co-participants

ucation 41 (2017) 7–19 9

design and reconstruct their utterances. The ways in which speak- ers exhibit themselves as knowing and unknowing participants can be a tool for tracking learning, as the next section will discuss.

3. Learning to read-in-interaction

Recently, Melander (2012), working within a framework that views learning as situated participation within ongoing commu- nity activities (Lave, 1993; see also Melander & Sahlström, 2009), has taken Charles Goodwin’s work on how participants’ identities as “knowing recipients” and “unknowing recipients” are publi- cally exhibited and become consequential for how co-participants design their utterances (C. Goodwin, 1981; see also C. Goodwin, 2013:12), and applied it to understanding children’s learning over time in classroom peer group activities. Specifically, Melander argues that changes over time in these epistemic identities as knowing and unknowing, which are exhibited through the mate- rial arrangement of participants’ bodies around artifacts (see also M.H. Goodwin & C. Goodwin, 2012), can serve as a way of tracking children’s learning over time in classroom peer group activities.

Analyzing a peer learning activity in which a Swedish child was teaching other peers to write numbers in Japanese, Melander identified several means by which participants could establish “a participation framework in which one participant is positioned as knowing whereas the others are positioned as unknowing” (2012:237). A participant could demonstrate herself as knowing by making verbal claims to “know,” and using embodied means to make displays of “doing thinking,” (Melander, 2012:238; see also Johnson, this issue). Concomitantly, participants can demon- strate themselves as unknowing through asking questions that defer to the knowledge of other speakers (see also Kyratzis, Marx, & Wade, 2001) as well as through other means. Melander concluded “that a way of analytically approaching learning in interaction” is through analyzing “processes of transformation” in participants’ knowledge states whereby less knowing participants become more knowing ones, thereby “constructing trajectories of knowing-in- transformation” (Melander, 2012:235, 246).

Following from this prior research, I examine how a friendship dyad of peers enrolled in a bilingual Spanish-English preschool in California predominantly serving Mexican-American families enact in play the activity of reading aloud to a peer. I will focus on how, through using language, embodiment, and material struc- tures in the environment, the children exhibit and recognize one another’s knowledge states and interactionally accomplish reading aloud to a peer. I examine how the child leading the reading uses embodied and multimodal resources to exhibit themselves as read- ing, including using environmental couplings of talk and gesture (C. Goodwin, 2013). Concomitantly, I examine how the peer being read to uses embodied resources to exhibit that they are attending to the reading (Hindmarsh et al., 2011; Erickson, 2004). I also track transformations of the children’s publically visible and embodied knowledge states across time, specifically, across two episodes of reading spaced several months apart, to illustrate how a “trajectory of knowing-in-interaction,” or learning, (Melander, 2012), can be made visible, particularly for the reader who was originally less knowing. Adding to Melander’s approach, I also examine how the children recalibrate (M.H. Goodwin & Cekaite, 2013) their exhibitions of reading to achieve peer attention in a situation of conflict, that is, in a situation where an embodied participation framework displaying the peer’s attention to the page being held up or out by the reader is not constituted (C. Goodwin, 2010), and

the peers’ relative knowledge states are contested. I argue that such transformations and recalibrations of a child’s specific publically visible exhibition of reading can make visible their microgenetic “learning” (Vygotsky, 1978; Inhelder, Bovet, & Sinclair, 1974), (i.e.,

1 nd Ed

t s

4

( b e C n m w w n c e s r a t J

t e m A w f E w

t t E t t s c t A a i &

f r o e T d i E i e s r t fi 4 J 4

0 A. Kyratzis / Linguistics a

ransformation of knowing how to read) occurring over turns in a ingle play or reading episode followed continuously.

. The data

The examples for this study are drawn from a larger study Kyratzis, 2010) of children’s free play interactions conducted at a ilingual Spanish-English Head Start preschool center which serves conomically disadvantaged families in a community in central alifornia. The families served by this preschool are predomi- antly of Mexican heritage. The study combined ethnography with ethods of talk-in-interaction (e.g., Erickson, 2006; M.H. Good- in, 2006). Children in one classroom of the bilingual preschool ere observed and videotaped weekly in their friendship groups in aturally occurring interactions during free play time; this specific ohort was followed longitudinally across two school years using thnographic methods. Small group literacy activities between tudents and teachers were also recorded. Episodes of literacy- elated activity within friendship groups and between students nd teachers were identified and transcribed using the conven- ions developed by Jefferson and described by Sacks, Schegloff, & efferson (1974, p. 731–733), (see Appendix).

For 80–90% of the families served by the preschool, Spanish is he language spoken in the home. The data were collected sev- ral years after Proposition 227, which ended bilingual education in ost public California elementary schools, was passed in California. lthough the preschool is bilingual, in order to support children ho will be going on to English-only kindergarten classrooms the

ollowing year, it is recommended to teachers that they use mainly nglish towards the end of the school year in small group work ith those children.

For those children in this classroom going on to kindergarten he following year, in small groupwork, the lead teacher would read o the children, and teach the letters and numbers increasingly in nglish as the school year progressed. However, she and the other eachers also used Spanish throughout the year, to reflect the fact hat for the majority of the students, Spanish was the language poken in the home. One literacy practice of the teachers in this lassroom was to have individual children “read” to their peers at he small group table, while the teachers asked guiding questions. s will be seen, the children then appropriated this school genre nd enacted it among themselves during free play time, apply- ng it to build their local own social organization (M.H. Goodwin

Kyratzis, 2012; M.H. Goodwin, 1990, 2006). In this ethnography, specific friendship groups of children were

ollowed over time and episodes of literacy-related activity car- ied out among group members, such as pretending to read to ne another, were identified and transcribed. I will present two xamples from one friendship dyad of children, Frida1 and Nancy. he two examples are from different time points of the same aca- emic year. Both children have stronger language competencies

n Spanish than in English, although one peer, Frida, gains stronger nglish language competencies as the school year progresses. Frida s slightly older (by 3 ½ months) than Nancy and a more experi- nced reader. Neither of the children are actually reading, in the ense of decoding printed text on the page, but they engage in epeated pretend readings where they display many of the prac-

ices of reading, particularly emergent reading (Sulzby, 1985). The rst example is from January (in this example, the children are aged

years, 1.5 mos. and 3 years, 9.5 mos.). The second example is from une of the same school year (in this example, the children are aged

years, 6.5 mos.; 4 years, 2 mos.).

1 All names of children and participants used in this report are pseudonyms.

ucation 41 (2017) 7–19

In the first example, Frida, the more experienced reader in these play enactments, exhibits reading by performing “environ- mentally coupled gestures” (C. Goodwin, 2010, 2013), holding the book up and linking pictures to orally stated character descrip- tions and event sequence descriptions that she is making. The peer, Nancy, exhibits that she is following or understanding the reading (Hindmarsh et al., 2011) through various embodied means. This is in contrast to the second example, in which Frida will attempt to again lead the reading, but Nancy will be engaged in her own, competing, reading and performing her own environmentally cou- pled gestures. As both girls attempt to solicit the attention of their peer to their own reading, they adjust their exhibitions of reading such that a trajectory of “knowing-in-transformation” (Melander, 2012:235) is made visible for both girls across turns in the example.

5. Children framing the activity of reading to a peer and demonstrating following a peer’s reading

In the first example, Frida, a 4-year-old girl, is “reading” “La Peor Señora del Mundo” (a book, authored by Francisco Hinojosa, which is about a bad woman who terrorizes a town) by choice to a still younger peer, Nancy, during free playtime in the classroom. As she is younger and does not usually serve as the reader in reading-to- a-peer enactments at this time point in the school year, Nancy can be viewed as a novice to reading. As the example will show, Frida, the child leading the reading, uses a range of embodied and mul- timodal resources, including prosody (“reading voice,” Gumperz & Cook-Gumperz, 2005) and holding the book up and facing it out- ward toward the the peer, to frame the activity as reading (Goffman, 1974, 1981) and to invite the peer’s attention and indicate what the peer should see or attend to in the book. Through the “environmen- tally coupled gestures” (C. Goodwin, 2010, 2013) that she uses and through guiding what Nancy should see on the page, Frida demon- strates herself as a knowing reader. The example also illustrates how the peer, Nancy, exhibits that she is following or understand- ing the reading (Hindmarsh et al., 2011) through various embodied means, thereby constituting herself as a reader, although of a less knowing sort than Frida, that is, one who is able to follow a reading.

In Example 1A, Frida uses an “environmentally coupled gesture” which articulates a relationship between a located sign (the picture on the page) and her story-telling (M.H. Goodwin & C. Goodwin, 2012:264). Nancy ratifies Frida’s projection of the picture of the bad woman as deserving of attention and also exhibits that she aligns in the same way as Frida did to the picture through various embodied means. Frida begins (line 1) with a statement to orient her audience to the story, a statement of affect “Es,tá ma:,la,” (she is bad). Although she cannot read yet, Frida frames the activity of reading a book aloud to Nancy by showing the correct bodily align- ment for reading to her peer. By holding the book up and faced outward showing a specific picture, a two-page illustration of a woman, featured with huge eyes, big teeth, and long nails, Frida performs a “noticing” and signals that the picture should become an object of focus for the child being read to, summoning her “into a framework of mutual orientation focused on the organization of collaborative action” (Goodwin & Goodwin, 2012:273). Not only is Frida signaling that she is reading a book in line 1, but she is projec- ting a form of stance display appropriate to the seeable character — she is projecting that that character is bad or threatening. Frida does

this through a specific categorization (she says that the woman is bad), and through her prosody, the way in which she “expressively animates” (Goodwin & Goodwin, 2012:262; Goffman, 1981) the narrative description of the protagonist symbolized on the page. She speaks softly and slowly and she exaggerates the length of the word “ma:la” (bad).

A. Kyratzis / Linguistics and Education 41 (2017) 7–19 11

Example 1A: Child Reading “La Peor Senora del Mundo” to Younger Peer in Free Play.

w a s o c t a B i N i r o b a t s i F d t a

p j e t i b

a t b G “ p “ n t c o a i

Example 1B.

In line 1, by holding up the book and indicating a spot on the page here Nancy should look, and giving an oral description, Frida uses

n “environmentally coupled gesture” which articulates a relation- hip between the located sign (the picture on the page) and her talk r story-description (Goodwin & Goodwin, 2012:264) which she is onducting through reading voice. This relationship is an impor- ant aspect of picturebook reading (Sulzby, 1985) and “what counts s knowledge” of reading (Melander, 2012:240) in this classroom. y demonstrating these gestures, Frida exhibits herself as know-

ng how to read. She also exhibits her right to read to and instruct ancy by pointing to a spot where Nancy should look. By look-

ng, Nancy ratifies Frida’s projection of herself as knowing how to ead and having the right to direct others’ attention to pictures n the page. She ratifies Frida’s projection of the picture of the ad woman as worthy of joint attention. She also exhibits that she ligns in the same way to the picture as Frida had indicated by urning her body away and holding up her arm (see line 2). The tance which she displays, of fear or warding away threat, exhibits n an embodied way (Hindmarsh et al., 2011) her understanding of rida’s categorization and its relationship to the page; her stance isplay of turning away after looking at the page may in fact con- ribute to the constitution of the categorized, pictured character s “scary.”

In Example 1B, Frida performs another “environmentally cou- led gesture” (C. Goodwin, 2013; Goodwin & Goodwin, 2012); she

uxtaposes her oral reading of an extended text describing sev- ral story actions, with the gestures of first holding the book up o Nancy, and then putting it down on the table and continu- ng to “read.” Nancy tracks the movement of the page with her ody.

In Example 1B, line 3, Frida holds the book up again. She signals shift in her footing by commencing what seems like the action of he reading of text from a page; reading is signaled prosodically, y her using the staccato rhythm of what Gumperz and Cook- umperz (2005) term “reading voice.” This consists of speaking

with a flattened almost monotone intonation, and staccato ronunciation” (2005:6). With this measured rhythm, she “reads,” Esta vez en, la noche, era, oyeron todos corriendo.” (This time at ight it was, they heard everyone running). This kind of measured one is “inviting others to listen along” (2005:6) with her. Here, in ontrast to Example 1A, Frida environmentally ties her oral reading

f an extended text, (i.e., she “reads” several story events; this time t night it was, they heard everyone running) to her gesture of hold- ng up a picture in a book. Indeed, Frida’s display of doing reading is

effective in securing her audience’s attention; Nancy “follows” (i.e., tracks) the book and oral event sequence description with her gaze and body; she leans forward when Frida holds the book up in line 3 (see Figure). Moreover, when, in line 4, Frida lowers the book to the table and continues to read, Nancy shifts her head and body back a little to be able to gaze down at the page along with Frida (see line 4).

In this way, the “intercorporeal framework for mutual engage- ment” (M.H. Goodwin & Cekaite, 2013:136) into which the children have arranged their bodies and the material resources provided a “public substrate” (C. Goodwin, 2013), that is, “a place where diverse semiotic resources can be brought together and accumu- lated through time into public configuration that allows new action to be built through precise, local operations on this complex” (2013:11). Against this substrate, an important lesson about lit- eracy could be conveyed to Nancy. This lesson consists of what Nancy should “see” about the book pages, namely, that informa- tion about the orally-dictated story’s content can be found there and tracked through transformations (C. Goodwin, 1994). By using “environmentally coupled gestures” and articulating relationships between spots and symbols on the page and orally told story content, first a descripton of a single story character, then a descrip- tion of several actions, Frida is providing her peer with valuable information to help her learn “the professional vision” (C. Good- win, 1994) of the book-reader, that is, the “socially organized ways of seeing and understanding events that are answerable to the distinctive interests of a particular social group” (1994:606). Here she is helping Nancy in “seeing” the book pages in a way that is answerable to the social group of classroom book-readers and emergent readers. She is helping Nancy “see” that pictures on the page convey the meaning of a story that is orally being told (Sulzby, 1985). Nancy ratifies this projection and exhibits her understanding (Hindmarsh et al., 2011) of a relationship exist- ing between the orally dictated story and the two-dimensional representations featured on the page by tracking the page with her gaze and body through transformations of the location of the page.

Example 1C shows Frida making another environmental cou- pling of orally dictated story content and pointing out something on the page.In lines 5–6, Frida continues “reading” the story again,

but in line 7, she pauses to hold the book up and show something notable on the page (probably a picture) to Nancy. In line 7, Frida uses a “perceptual directive” (Goodwin & Goodwin, 2012), “Ira◦ esta

12 A. Kyratzis / Linguistics and Education 41 (2017) 7–19

Example 1C.

i p u s g i S ( t d h c d j e f f 1 t o ( c t h t T i h

f b t i c ( a b a i a p p J

( s e k

l

Example 1D.

ra, está,” (look this look, it is,),2 to direct Nancy’s attention to the icture on the page. She simultaneously holds up the picture to nderscore its worthiness of being seen. Nancy demonstrates that he has located what Frida indicated as important to look at by azing at the page and demonstrating an audience response that s in keeping with the story content that Frida has been dictating. he exhibits scared affect; she covers her mouth with her hand line 8). Again, as Frida had just been dictating story content about he townspeople hearing the bad woman approaching when she irected Nancy to look on the page, she is constituting through er environmentally coupled action, a relationship between story ontent that she is orally telling, and two-dimensional pictures epicted on the page. Moreover, this relationship that she is pro-

ecting is ratified by Nancy’s action of looking at the page and xhibiting a display of scared affect. So to summarize, at three dif- erent points across Example 1, we have seen Frida issuing some orm of directive or projection for Nancy to look on the page (lines , 3, and 5), and all three times, Nancy has ratified this projection by racking the page with her body or exhibiting an appropriate form f affect display. As Frida uses “environmentally coupled gestures” C. Goodwin, 2010, 2013) projecting a relationship between story ontent that she is dictating orally and pictures that she is pointing o on the page, and Nancy follows these actions, Nancy too exhibits er understanding of the story, and of the relevance of the pictures o the story, through embodied means (Hindmarsh et al., 2011). hrough these actions, one child, Frida, exhibits herself as a know- ng readier and the other child, Nancy, exhibits herself as knowing ow to be read to and follow another’s reading.

These actions are important, not only for exhibiting reading, but or building social organization between the two children. As noted y Goodwin, “positions of leadership” are not only constituted by he opening move of a directive sequence, but through “the way n which requests from others are responded to, either ratifying or hallenging the stance taken by a boy proposing to act as leader” M.H. Goodwin, 1990:103). At three points in Example 1 (lines 3, 5, nd 7), Frida’s directives or indications to look have been ratified y her “student;” Nancy shows the appropriate affect and bodily lignment by looking at the page and/or exhibiting through embod- ed means the indicated fear reaction. The hierarchical participant lignment of teacher/reader-leader to student/audience is accom- lished over the sequence of interaction by the ways in which Frida rojects the former role and Nancy ratifies it over and over (see also

ohnson, this issue). Example 1D, which is a continuation of the same reading episode

Frida continues to read ‘La Peor Señora del Mundo’ to Nancy),

hows Frida, in the reader role, projecting another important lit- racy lesson as part of her activity of doing reading to a peer, a nown-answer question.In line 10, Frida pauses in her narrative

2 In some regions of Mexico, “ira” is used as an abbreviation of the verb “mira” (to ook).

to ask her audience member a question to test understanding, as she has seen her teachers do (“¿Por qué estaba sola? Why was she by herself?). This type of “known-answer question” is typical in the classroom discourse of white middle-class teachers (Erickson, 2004:60; Heath, 1983) and also projects Frida’s alignment as a teacher. As Frida uses “teaching or instructing” directives (M.H. Goodwin, 1990:99), “assum[ing] the position of an expert telling less competent other how to perform the activity in progress,” she holds Nancy accountable for following the story content. How- ever, Nancy does not comply with this expectation; she does not answer the known-answer question, forcing Frida to answer it for her (NA:die le molestaba “No one bothered her”). Through Frida’s question, which “environmentally couples” (C. Goodwin, 2010) a gesture (her point to a two-dimensional representation of some- thing on the page) with the story content that she has just been telling, Nancy becomes exposed to an expectation about account- able reading practice, that the Listener can be asked to answer questions testing orally-conveyed story content and somehow “see” the answer in pictures on the page.

Throughout this example, we saw one child exhibiting know- ing how to read and the other exhibiting knowing how to follow a reading, making evident the “appropriate actions for knowing and unknowing participants,” that is, “what counts as knowledge in the activity” of reading (Melander, 2012:242, 240; C. Goodwin, 1981), and their interactional accomplishment. Local identities of know- ing and unknowing participants need to be ratified; Frida exhibited her identity as knowing how to read through holding up the book, using reading voice, making noticings and otherwise inviting Nancy to look on the page, and Nancy ratified all of the “projected trajec- tories” of reading action that Frida proposed (Melander, 2012:242) through gaze and movement of her body.

These local identities of knowing and unknowing participants are not static (Melander, 2012). As we shall see in the next exam- ple, Example 2, Nancy, 5 months later, will show a transformation in her use of these actions for knowing and unknowing participants, beginning to exhibit some of the actions of knowing how to read herself, including holding the book up and out, noticing and call- ing attention to pictured objects on the page, and asking questions about them, when she herself attempts to assume the reader-leader role.

6. Children doing competing readings to a peer: recalibrating trajectories of reading action

Example 1 illustrated how, in the course of doing reading to a peer, the child assuming the identity of the reader or reader-leader makes repeated attempts to act as a knowing reader and project courses of reading action, using different actions that invite the attention of the child being read to (holding the book up, pointing, using reading voice). Moreover, it illustrated the actions by which the peer demonstrates that she is following the reading. In Example 1, Nancy was merely following her peer Frida’s reading, demon- strating her local epistemic identity as an engaged, yet nonetheless, less knowing reader (C. Goodwin, 2013; Melander, 2012). This is in

contrast to the second example, five months later, in which Frida will attempt to again lead the reading, but Nancy will not ratify Frida’s projected epistemic identity and align as a follower of her peer’s reading. Instead, Nancy will exhibit engagement in her own,

nd Education 41 (2017) 7–19 13

“ c p i t t m b a t k n & i A N l 2 c o s [ s 2 w c

S g r S r E

f t E d r

i d C n o f e r e a b r a o t a r t s s i a

i o t

Example 2A: Children “Reading” To Each Other Late in Year.

A. Kyratzis / Linguistics a

competing project” (M.H. Goodwin & Cekaite, 2013:130), leading a ompeting reading, and performing her own environmentally cou- led gestures and noticings, such that both girls will be demonstrat-

ng themselves as knowing readers. When Example 2 is compared o Example 1, we see that the positioning and alignment among par- icipants and their exhibited epistemic identities has moved from a

ore hierarchical arrangement to a more egalitarian one. As noted y Melander, there is a “dynamic relationship between knowing nd unknowing participants;” such relationships exist on “a con- inuum as unknowing participants [here, Nancy] become more nowledgeable” (2012:246). Example 2 will also illustrate microge- etic learning occurring, as both girls “recalibrate” (M.H. Goodwin

Cekaite, 2013:130) their embodied reading actions across turns n the example to try to get the peer to attend to their reading. cross turns in Example 2, through such recalibrations of her action, ancy demonstrates closer and closer approximations to a pub-

ically recognized environmentally coupled gesture (C. Goodwin, 010; 2013) used to demonstrate reading in this classroom, that of alling a peer’s attention to a 2-dimensional symbol on the page and rally reciting story content, projecting the content as carried by the ymbol. Through documenting “these processes of transformation of states of knowing, here, exhibitions of reading] and by con- tructing trajectories of knowing-in-transformation” (Melander, 012:235) for Nancy across Examples 1 and 2, and across turns ithin Example 2, I will show Nancy learning both macrogeneti-

ally and microgenetically (Vygotsky, 1978) in the interaction. Example 1 was from January, when books were still read in

panish in small groupwork (for the children going to kinder- arten) in this classroom. By March, books were increasingly ead in English; however, the teachers would still code-switch to panish to explain the content to the students. These practices are eflected in the reading activities of the children as will be seen in xample 2.

Example 2 is from late in the year; it is from June. It is outdoor ree play time, and the children are sitting under a tent set up by heir teacher with a shelf of books. The first part of the example, xample 2A, demonstrates the competing projects of the two chil- ren, and each child’s efforts to get the other child to attend to their eading.

In the first part of Example 2A, Frida exhibits herself as “read- ng” a book to her peer through using multiple contextualization evices. She uses the staccato rhythm of reading voice (Gumperz & ook-Gumperz, 2005) when she says “my DADDY. my daddy say, o, mo:re, elephants, in, house” (lines 1–2). This prosody invites thers to follow along with her. She also holds the book up and aces it outward, forming an “intercorporeal framework for mutual ngagement” (M.H. Goodwin & Cekaite, 2013:136) that would, if atified, accomplish the alignment of a child reading to a peer. How- ver, as line 2 indicates (see Figure), Nancy has arranged herself in

competing arrangement whereby she is looking down at her own ook. In other words, Nancy is not aligning her gaze with Frida’s eading action, as she did in Example 1. Similar to what Goodwin nd Cekaite (2013) found for children and parents negotiating the ngoing progress of parent–child communicative projects like get- ing a child to bed, where “children can derail the agreed-upon ctivity trajectory by demonstrating their unavailability for the equested action, (for example, by displaying their engagement in heir own competing projects)” (2013:130), Nancy here is demon- trating her engagement in her own, competing, reading. As we will ee, both children will use a range of moves, both verbal and embod- ed, to “recalibrate” (Goodwin & Cekaite, 2013) the reading action nd mobilize their peer’s alignment with their reading project.

As Example 2A continues, Frida proceeds to read in lines 3–4, but n line 6, Nancy, who has been leafing through her own book (Curi- us George), lifts it up slightly off her lap and calls out about some- hing pictured in it, using the hybrid English-Spanish construction

“El mon,key!” Her identification of the pictured object as “mon- key” in English probably reflects her hearing previous readings of the English book in the classroom, but her insertion of the English object term into the Spanish noun phrase frame “El mon,key” is notable; we see Nancy, with this hybrid construction, creating a space (Gumperz & Cook-Gumperz, 2005) for herself to draw analogies comparing sentence construction processes in the two languages that she is exposed to. Although Frida (line 6) is fussing with the cover of her own book, and hence, is not gazing at Nancy’s, it is significant that Nancy in line 6 is engaging in an oral practice of book-reading, that is, identifying objects pictured in the book and calling out about them to others. She lifts the book up off her lap slightly at this point and looks at Frida, even though she doesn’t hold it all the way up or turn it outward for her peer to see (recall that Frida is not looking anyway) (see line 6). It is possible that Nancy’s past participation in the activity of being read to by a peer (like the one featured in Example 1), has attuned her to the practices involved in conducting her own activity of reading to a peer. This is

a reasonable assumption, as in Example 1, she almost exclusively participated in embodied ways which followed Frida’s activity of reading to her (i.e., following the page with her gaze and body and displaying scared affect). Here in Example 2, using the linguistic

14 A. Kyratzis / Linguistics and Education 41 (2017) 7–19

Example 2B.

r h w s c p b F

w r r t r a m o N a i d s i W c “ q t a T h s p t c a 2 N t t i i s 2 o

b ( G a

Example 2B, cont.

esources (Spanish) that she is more comfortable with, she initiates er own reading and makes a “noticing” (M.H. Goodwin & C. Good- in, 2012), and begins to pair her oral noticing with a gesture of

howing the book to Frida, exhibiting the type of environmentally oupled gestures (C. Goodwin, 2010) that Frida was using in Exam- le 1. However, she does not seem to realize that she has to lift the ook higher and turn it around in order for Frida to see it (see line 6). rida is preoccupied with her own book and does not look anyway.

As the interactional sequence continues (Example 2B), Nancy ill be seen “recalibrating” (M.H. Goodwin & Cekaite, 2013) her

eading action, using a range of embodied and vocal practices of eading to a peer as she attempts to mobilize her peer’s attention o her reading.In line 10 of Example 2, Nancy, having elicited no esponse of looking from Frida, puts her book down for a moment nd looks at Frida as Frida reads “Me. With. Bird. I (didn’t know), om and boy. I-” Starting in line 11, Nancy launches a sequence

f moves to get Frida’s attention. First, as Frida finishes her turn, ancy looks down at her own book and struggles to turn the pages, pparently searching for a page. She says in line 11, very fast, seem- ngly excitedly, “cómo se llama la calle Frida? (es grandote)” What o you call the street Frida? (it’s big). As she does this, she finishes truggling to turn the page to the place she is talking about; hav- ng located it, she rests her hand on it (see line 11 and Figure).

hen compared to her reading action in line 6, where she had alled out “El monkey,” Line 11 is significant because Nancy has recalibrated” her reading action to get Frida to look at her. The uestion format which she uses represents a recalibration from the ype of move that she had made in line 6, which was to call out n identification of a two-dimensional representation on the page. o ask a question is similar to what her more expert peer Frida ad done in line 10 of the previous example, Example 1, where he asked, “¿Por qué estaba sola?” (Why she was by herself) as she ointed to a spot on the page. Calling out a question may increase he social-invitational force of Nancy’s reading action; questions all for a response whereas picture-identifications or “noticings” lone may not necessarily achieve uptake (Goodwin & Goodwin, 012:272). In struggling to locate the page that shows the street, ancy also exhibits some understanding (Hindmarsh et al., 2011)

hat three-dimensional things orally being described can be pic- ured as two-dimensional objects and seen on the page. However, n line 11, she is the only one seeing the pictured object; she is not, n accordance with reading practice, using gesture in such a way o as to get her peer, Frida, to see the page (see line 11 of Example B). That is, she is not holding it up to her. Yet, as the continuation f Example 2B will indicate, all is not lost.

In response to the fact that Frida barely looked at Nancy or her

ook in line 11, in line 14, Nancy calls out “look it, look it, mira Frida” see line 14). This calling out of a perceptual directive (Goodwin & oodwin, 2012:276) is a move that could intitiate the collaborative ction of getting her peer to look at the page. It does not, however.

Nancy’s expectation that it should is seen in Nancy’s “Awwww” and movement of putting the book down, first in her lap, and then, back on the book shelf in lines 15–16. However, line 14 is nonetheless significant in that Nancy has again recalibrated her reading action. In contrast to line 11, this time, Nancy has coupled her calling out with a gesture of lifting her book all the way off her lap, facing outward, in an attempt to get Frida to fully see it (see line 14). This is an emergent posture for Nancy to assume, as she has never accomplished it before in Example 2.

Over this trajectory of reading action, then, it can be seen that the novice reader, Nancy, came to use, like her more expert peer Frida was using in Example 1, environmentally coupled gestures, that is, gestures pointing out pictures (two-dimensional represen- tations) in the book, paired with verbal actions such as calling out questions about and noticings of three-dimensional objects in the real world. Through these environmentally coupled actions, Nancy comes to better “see” (C. Goodwin, 1994) something about the book pages, something important in literacy acquisition (Sulzby, 1985), namely, that information about orally queried or identified real- world objects can be seen and tracked as two-dimensional object representations there, and through recalibration, she also comes to exhibit the book so that her peer can better see those book pages and two-dimensional representations. Her understanding of reading is an embodied and interactive understanding.

Moreover, this exhibited understanding came about through the peers’ coordinated (or in this case, uncoordinated) action within a complex “ecology of sign systems” (C. Goodwin, 2006:38), consist- ing of the embodied participation framework between the children, their sitting at right angles to one another, such that if Nancy calls out about or shows a book page, Frida, who is nearby and sit- ting at a right angle to her, can look at it and see it (or choose not to do so). Through this complex ecology of sign systems and through a trajectory of reading action involving recalibration of her own action in response to her peer’s non-action (M.H. Goodwin & Cekaite, 2013), Nancy comes to achieve part of the “professional vision” of a bookreader (C. Goodwin, 1994, 2013). She has moved from demonstrating herself as a less knowing reader at the begin- ning of Example 2, to more a more knowing one by this later point in the example (C. Goodwin, 1981), through her ability to manipulate the artifact, the book, and show the environmentally coupled gesture (holding the book up and recounting something orally from it) that “counts as knowledge” (Melander, 2012:240) of

reading in this classroom. Through constructing Nancy’s “trajectory of knowing-in-transformation” (Melander, 2012:235), I have been able to document her “learning in interaction” across Example 2,

A. Kyratzis / Linguistics and Education 41 (2017) 7–19 15

Example 2B: Concluding Part of the Segment.

a 1

t r o t a l p t d F w h l s b e t b r “ t i o d ( p w (

7 r p p

a a a b o m t w

Example 2C.

nd therefore her learning occurring microgenetically (Vygotsky, 978) over the sequence of interaction.

The concluding part of Example 2B illustrates Nancy sustaining he learning and professional vision that she had achieved through ecalibrating her action (in response to her peer’s not looking) ver the interactional sequence in Example 2.When, in response o continued non-responsiveness from Frida, Nancy says “awww” nd gets a new book from the bookshelf, (as we saw her do in ines 15–16), and sees that Frida is still involved in her reading roject (lines 17–18), she calls out a directive for Frida to look at he new book (“Look, (what I founded)!”), (line 20). She pairs this irective with a gesture of holding the book up (see line 20) to rida, demonstrating herself as a more knowing reader (C. Good- in, 2013; Melander, 2012) and showing that the learning that she ad achieved through recalibration of her reading action across

ines 11–14 has been sustained. Nancy in line 20 exhibits under- tanding that in order to get a peer to look at the book or picture eing called out about, she must hold it up toward the peer. A more xpert understanding of reading action is not seen, however, in hat Nancy faces the back cover, rather than the front cover, of the ook toward Frida (see line 20). Nonetheless, that she sustains and e-enacts a component of the posture that she learned across the trajectory of knowing-in-transformation” (Melander, 2012:235) hat was made visible for her across Example 2, documents that she s sustaining the learning that she had achieved across this episode f reading. Her action across the entire example shows her “further evelop[ing]” her skill in the “activities central to the community” C. Goodwin, 2015:34) of classroom readers as she played with her eer over the sequence of turns in this reading enactment. In this ay, these peer events constitute true “ecologies for peer learning”

Erickson, 1982, 2004; Johnson, this issue).

. Use of a known-answer comprehension question to ecalibrate action and achieve a particular “intercorporeal articipation framework”: from competing readings to one eer reading to another

So far, we have seen both children attempting to read to one nother in Example 2. They have used attempts to hold up the book nd use reading voice or call out object-identifications or questions bout the pictured objects to invite the other child to attend to their ook and to project that they have the right to determine what the

ther child sees (or listens to) and “what deserves attention in the oment” (Johnson, 2015:92). However, neither child has received

he peer’s attention and action of looking. They have been at odds ith one another. This competitive, albeit egalitarian, participation

framework (neither child is ratifying the other’s projected claims of having the right to control where they look) is soon to be disrupted through one of the children’s posing a teacher-like known-answer question.

Example 2C begins after Frida had put her book down when she saw that Nancy was holding up the counting book and calling out about it, thereby not following her reading (line 21 of previous example).

In response to Nancy not following Frida’s reading and calling out directives about her own book (line 20), Frida stops reading from her book. Her use of reading voice, though inviting others to attend to what she is saying (Gumperz & Cook-Gumperz, 2005), has not garnered this desired effect from Nancy. So Frida recal- ibrates (M.H. Goodwin & Cekaite, 2013) her reading action. She holds the book against her chest, leans forward, and asks a question, “Qué qué pasó en la historia Nancy? Qué pasó?” (What happened in the story Nancy? What happened?) (line 22, see Figure). This question tests Nancy’s understanding of the story. Frida’s code- switch to Spanish is notable; it signals a change in the alignment or footing (Goffman, 1981) that she is taking to her talk from the “communicative project” of reading the story proper to the com- peting “communicative project” of asking questions or rendering commentary upon the story (Linell, 1998; see Johnson, this issue; Moore, this issue).

While Frida’s uses of reading voice have so far not been effec- tive in garnering Nancy’s attention and her abandonment of the competing activity of reading her own book (M.H. Goodwin & Cekaite, 2013), Frida’s posing of the teacher-like known-answer question (Erickson, 2004:60; Heath, 1983), perhaps because of its authority—it projects Frida’s alignment as a teacher and “as assum[ing] the position of an expert telling less competent other how to perform the activity” (M.H. Goodwin, 1990:99)—, or perhaps because it is a primary resource for selecting next speaker, at least in American English conversation (Stivers, 2010), is effective in garnering Nancy’s attention. Nancy finally puts her book down and looks at Frida (see line 22). Nancy orients to the question as demanding that she demonstrate understanding. She even assumes a gesture of putting her hand in her mouth (line 22), which projects concern that she may not be able to answer the question (see line 22 and Figure) posed to her by the “teacher.” She complies with the expectation that she is accountable for exhibiting knowledge to the teacher; she attempts to answer the question, saying in Spanish, “que, que era. . .que,que era. . .” (that it was, that it was) but then she ends off with a question (“Qué era

esto?”) (What was it?) (line 23). In asking a question in response to the test question posed of her by Frida, Nancy further ratifies Frida’s projection of herself as being in the position of an expert

16 A. Kyratzis / Linguistics and Ed

Example 2C, cont.

a b h c a f i o

i a

d J “ F t r a p i a h e “ t e a s & t c t p

nd exhibits the state of her own knowledge of reading as not eing quite up to that of Frida (Melander, 2012). It is notable here ow the children appropriate aspects of the classroom literacy urriculum (i.e., here questions that test story understanding) nd strategically adapt them to provide particular “affordances or participation” (Martin & Evaldsson, 2012) in the local peer nteraction; they use them to project and establish particular forms f social organization between themselves (M.H. Goodwin, 1990).

As Example 2C continues, after Nancy fell short of answer- ng Frida’s question, Frida evaluates Nancy’s reply, and assumes

stance indicating that she knows better than her peer. Frida moves in to take full advantage of the fact that Nancy

oesn’t know. She initiates a repair-sequence (McHoul, 1990; see ohnson, this issue) shrugging her shoulders, shaking her head no” and making a self-satisfied, “too-bad” face (see line 24 and igure), correcting and evaluating Nancy and thereby shoring up he projection of herself as being in the role of a more knowing eader (Melander, 2012). As noted by M.H. Goodwin, 1990 (see lso Johnson, this issue), although other-correction may be a dis- referred form of correction in student–teacher interactions, as it

s more aggravated, it is not a dispreferred form of peer correction, nd in using it here, Frida is being quite direct in her bid to project erself in the superior role (here, that of a more expert reader). Her mbodied display of stance and affect (the shrug, headshake, and too bad” facial expression”) accompanying the correction point up he poor performance of the “student” and her own superior knowl- dge. Frida’s display of affective stance provides crucial information bout how she is orienting to the interaction and underscores the ocial force of her evaluation (C. Goodwin, 2007; M.H. Goodwin

Cekaite, 2013; Goodwin, Cekaite, & Goodwin, 2012). Through

hese means, she effectively enacts a peer-based form of social ontrol (see Johnson, this issue). She then, in the next action in he sequence, juxtaposes this display of the inadequacy of her eer’s knowledge with a display of her own greater knowledge by

ucation 41 (2017) 7–19

holding the book up and pointing to a page (line 25 and Figure). Here she implies that in contrast to her peer, she knows where the answer lies, and projects to her peer that she has the right to direct her attention to that location on the page. Her “environ- mentally coupled gesture” (C. Goodwin, 2010) in line 25 projects that the summary of the story that she has been telling orally can be seen and represented two-dimensionally as a picture on the page, another valuable literacy lesson. She then reifies this corre- spondence further by turning the page around, looking at it, and summarizing the story, “Que el niño estaba jugando futbol y le dijo, le dijo a su mamá que si puedo jugar afue:::ra” (That the boy was playing soccer and he told, he told his mom if he can play ou:::tside) (line 26). Like Frida’s question to the student “Qué qué pasó en la historia Nancy?=,” the summary framed for the student’s benefit is encoded in Spanish.

Use of test questions and correction can serve as resources for exhibiting greater knowledge than a peer (M.H. Goodwin, 1990), in this case, of reading. Despite her use of these resources, it should be noted that the story that Frida has been reciting from the book, and her summary in line 27, do not match the text of the book that she has been holding and “reading” from all through Example 2. The book, titled “Rin, Rin, Rin, Do, Re, Mi” (a picture book in Spanish and English by José-Luis Orozco and David Diaz) is a book with- out a story per se; it features pictures of family members engaged in everyday family events such as parents waking children up in the morning, eating breakfast, and getting them ready for bed. The text encourages family members and child readers to practice their rhymes, letters, and numbers (e.g., it features child characters say- ing things such as “do re mi, sing to me” and “A,B,C, say letters to me!”). It is notable here that Frida, although projecting herself as being in the more knowledgeable role by demanding a display of knowledge from her peer and subsequently evaluating that display negatively, and although providing her younger peer with valuable experience in the practices of reading to a peer, is not herself actu- ally correctly reading the book, either. Nonetheless, by pointing to the page, she is projecting that she knows something that Nancy should “see” about the book page, and she subsequently dictates a summary of the story. In these actions, she is providing an envi- ronmentally coupled gesture (C. Goodwin, 2013:15), which points out a relationship between the spot on the page (a picture) and a summary of the story content. With her gesture, she is “introduc- ing a new semiotic field with the potential of eliciting attention” (Melander, 2012:238; see also C. Goodwin, 2000), a semiotic field where representation of a whole story can be located. Hence, she projects another valuable literacy lesson, namely, that the summary of an orally dictated story can be “seen” on the page. She is therefore providing her peer with further valuable information to help her learn “the professional vision” (C. Goodwin, 1994) of a book-reader, that is, the “socially organized ways of seeing and understanding events that are answerable to the distinctive interests of a particu- lar social group” (Goodwin, 1994:606; see also de León, this issue). Through guiding where Nancy could see the summary of the whole story on the page, rather than an isolated story object or action, she also positions herself as a more knowing reader (Melander, 2012). Thus, it can be seen that although Nancy made gains in Example 2 in her learning and in displaying herself as a knowing reader, the act of reading to a peer is interactionally accomplished and constantly under negotiation. The knowledge states that comprise reading action and that are exhibited by participants are them- selves constantly subject to transformation (Melander, 2012). As Nancy would not follow Frida’s reading in the earlier part of Exam- ple 2, Frida, in response, recalibrated her own reading action and

“upped the ante” so to speak in the contest of who was reading to whom by asking for a summary of the whole story and indicating where that, rather than an individual object identification or action description, could be located on the page. This is a more advanced

nd Ed

d h t i

( h a a t t o d i c o c

E r a c f T i i h i d t t i p F h r t w m i

8

p a ( t s t p t p t e l n t t e k i

c i

A. Kyratzis / Linguistics a

isplay of knowledge of reading. The relative knowledge states and ence participant positions as exhibited by the two children are hus now once again more asymmetrically arranged, as they were n Example 1.

In constructing “trajectories of knowing-in-transformation” Melander, 2012:235) for a pair of children over time, we can see ow exhibitions of knowing how to read are constantly recalibrated nd negotiated by the children. As Nancy was shown to be learning cross the first parts of Example 2 through exhibiting transforma- ion of her states of knowing (Melander, 2012:235), it can be seen hat over Example 2, Frida was also demonstrating transformation f her state of knowing and therefore could also be said to have emonstrated learning. She did so by recalibating her publicly vis-

ble reading action to a more advanced form of an environmentally oupled gesture, that is, one of locating where the entire summary f the story, rather than an individual story object or story action, ould be seen on the page.

The children’s teacher tended to read books increasingly in nglish as the school year progressed. When we compare Frida’s eading in Example 1 to her reading in Example 2, it is notable that, s a child who had much stronger Spanish than English language ompetencies at the beginning of the school year, she uses English or the bookreading all through the first two parts of Example 2. he shift across the two examples suggests that although the abil- ty to use Spanish no doubt supported her earlier reading attempts n the school year (i.e., in Example 1), she is, by Example 2, learning ow to act in the culturally appropriate ways of reading modeled

n this classroom (Heath, 1983). Fortunately for the bilingual chil- ren of this classroom, Frida’s teacher, later in the school year, hough reading increasingly in English, would still often switch o Spanish to explain English book content to the children, and it s notable that the teacher’s uses of local diversified educational ractice (Blommaert, Collins, & Slembrouk, 2005) were reflected in rida’s own practices, those of shifting to Spanish to frame a shift in er footing (Goffman, 1981) at the end of Example 2, in part C, from eading the story, to questioning, commenting on, and explaining he story to Nancy. Similarly, the use of Spanish in this classroom as also beneficial for Nancy’s participation; when she began to ake her own contributions of reading action, as we saw her doing

n Example 2, she did so almost entirely in Spanish.

. Conclusions

The activity of reading to a peer is an interactively achieved henomenon (Johnson, 2017). The child leading the reading uses

range of embodied and multimodal resources, including prosody reading voice) and holding the book up facing outward to the peer, o invite the peer’s attention and to indicate what the peer should ee or attend to in the book. For the bilingual children of this study, hese resources include bilingual resources. Concomintantly, the eer being read to uses a range of embodied resources to exhibit hat they are attending to the reading, (including tracking the book age with their gaze, and showing embodied affective reactions to he story content, as we saw Nancy using in Example 1) (Hindmarsh t al., 2011), thereby demonstrating the rich “cognitive, reflexive ife of the hearer” (Goodwin & Goodwin, 2004:240). If the peer does ot display these embodied forms of attention, the child leading he reading recalibrates (M.H. Goodwin & Cekaite, 2013) her efforts o get the peer to attend. Closer and closer approximations of the nvironmentally coupled gestures and other actions that count as nowledge of reading can be learned and emerge through these

nteractional processes.

These examples contribute to a deeper understanding of how hildren learn how to act in culturally appropriate ways in read- ng activities and how children’s appropriation of the doing of

ucation 41 (2017) 7–19 17

reading develops over time in everyday peer group interactions. Over several months’ time across the two examples (Examples 1 and 2), and over a sequence of interactions in a single episode (Example 2), one child, Nancy, moved from exhibiting herself as a less knowing reader, to a more knowing one (C. Goodwin, 1981, 2013), through her ability to manipulate the artifact, the book, and show the environmentally coupled gestures (holding the book up and recounting something orally from it) that “coun[t] as knowledge” (Melander, 2012:240) of reading in this class- room. As noted by Melander, “a way of analytically approaching learning in interaction is through . . . constructing trajectories of knowing-in-transformation” (Melander, 2012:235). A comparison across Examples 1 and 2 demonstrate learning occurring macro- genetically in interaction, as Nancy moved from merely following Frida’s reading to being able to initiate noticings and lookings at the page herself (“El mon,key!;” “es grandote” it’s big) and exhibiting the type of environmentally coupled gestures (Goodwin, 2010) that her peer, Frida, was using in Example 1. A comparison across turns within a single example (Example 2) demonstrated transformation of knowledge (Melander, 2012) and learning occur- ring microgenetically (Vygotsky, 1978; Inhelder et al., 1974), as Nancy moved towards making closer and closer approximations of reading-relevant environmentally coupled gestures, gestures that paired 2-dimensional figures on the page with oral statements about objects. This analysis supports Melander’s approach by doc- umenting trajectories of change in Nancy’s exhibitions of reading and therefore her “knowing-in-transformation” (Melander, 2012) over both macrogenetic and microgenetic time.

Moreover, adding to Melander’s approach, the analysis here demonstrates the role of progressive recalibration (M.H. Goodwin & Cekaite, 2013) in generating this “knowing-in-transformation” and change in a child’s public display of reading (hence, their “learn- ing in interaction”) (Melander, 2012). When her peer, Frida, did not exhibit the embodied participation framework of looking at the indicated spot in Nancy’s book that Nancy was expecting, this prompted Nancy to recalibrate her reading action to exhibit the appropriate environmentally coupled gesture that would enable Frida to look at the spot. Through recalibrating her gestures, Nancy “learned,” that is transformed her embodied display of reading and exhibited herself as a more knowing reader. Frida also, in Example 2c, recalibrated her reading action, “upped the ante,” and learned (i.e., came to use a more advanced form of an environmentally cou- pled gesture) after her action up to that point had not successfully achieved Nancy’s attention. By illustrating how children’s learn- ing in interaction can occur through their recalibation of action in a situation where their relative knowledge states are contested, Example 2 illustrates how Vygotskian and Piagetian models of microgenetic learning through peer conflict can be reconciled with the situated, moment-to-moment and interactive perspective on learning being taken here.

These examples also contribute to an understanding of the role of the “intercorporeal arrangement” (M.H. Goodwin & Cekaite, 2013:136) of the children’s bodies in supporting such learning. The intercorporeal arrangement between Frida and Nancy provided a public substrate upon which the children could perform cumulative transformations upon their actions in the same session (C. Good- win, 2013), and against which Nancy could recalibrate her action and lift the picture book higher and more directly facing outward, finally showing the correct bodily alignment for her peer to see the book. In this way, the embodied participation frameworks which children build in these reading to a peer activities provide rich, lam- inated fields of action and a “public substrate” for further learning

about picture book reading, and for coming to “see” and collab- oratively achieve the “professional vision” of book pages that is specific to the community of classroom readers (C. Goodwin, 1994, 2010, 2013, in press; Erickson, 2004; see also de León, this issue).

1 nd Ed

I d f t a a

h u t t t t e i m p s d i F w a i b 6 e o p a o &

t t & G 2 i m fi e t s m C & i s

w r i C f p t s i t f “ M n G e

8 A. Kyratzis / Linguistics a

n this analysis, the use of temporally unfolding excerpts and line rawings, rather than linguistic descriptions alone, were essential or capturing the diverse and subtle ways in which children use heir bodies and the material environment to accomplish relevant ction and organize the doing of reading as a public and shared ctivity over time.

These examples illustrate the embodied nature of reading and ow the “environmentally coupled gestures” (C. Goodwin, 2013) sed by the children in this study are important for literacy acquisi- ion. Heath (1983) emphasizes the need for children to demonstrate he ability to relate two-dimensional representations on the page o three-dimensional objects in the real world and talk about hese “displaced objects” in order for them to be considered as xhibing the culturally required practices that count as reading n “Maintown” classrooms. Sulzby (1985) also found that white

iddle-class children who engaged in repeated readings of favorite icture books with their parents at this age took away a wealth of chool-required literacy practices from these activities, including emonstrating the understanding that pictures carry story mean-

ng. The California Department of Education’s (2008) Preschool oundations for Language and Literacy, which set guidelines for hat children are expected to know by 45 and 60 months of age,

lso argue for the importance of such gestures by including embod- ed aspects of reading in the Foundations (e.g., “Display appropriate ook-handling behaviors and knowledge of print conventions;” p. 3). The examples here illustrate some of the ways in which these mbodied practices so crucial to achieving the “professional vision” f book pages needed for the community of American classroom icture book readers can be learned and emerge interactionally mong peers as they read to one another and build local social rder in everyday classroom peer play activities (M.H. Goodwin

Kyratzis, 2007; Goodwin & Kyratzis, 2012). In that one child attempts to control what the other peer sees,

he reading to a peer activities also enable children to enact par- icular forms of social organization among participants (Goodwin

Goodwin, 2004; M.H. Goodwin, 1990, 2006; C. Goodwin, 2015; riswold, 2007; Johnson, this issue; Kyratzis et al., 2001; Kyratzis, 007; Martin & Evaldsson, 2012; Melander, 2012). The child who

s attempting to control what the other peer sees or listens to ay or may not have the projection of their right to do so rati-

ed by the other peer over the sequence of interaction, resulting in ither hierarchical (Examples 1 and 2C) or egalitarian (though con- ested), (Examples 2A and 2B) forms of social organization. These ocial organizational affordances of reading to a peer are highly otivating to children (Blum-Kulka, Huck-Taglicht, & Avni, 2004;

ekaite, Blum-Kulka, Grøver, & Teubal, 2014; Kyratzis, 2014; Martin Evaldsson, 2012). By being aware of children’s own goals in read-

ng with one another, educators might better design and facilitate uch activities in the classroom (Dyson, 1991).

In this bilingual preschool setting, Spanish language resources ere a major resource that children could draw upon to frame their

eadings (e.g., Frida in Example 1) or to use in order to participate n competing bookreadings with a peer (e.g., Nancy in Example 2). ode-switching to Spanish was also a resource that Frida used for raming shifts in phase of the reading activity or “communicative roject” (Linell, 1998; Moore, this issue) from main story action o side-explanations (Example 2C), thereby affording her a tool for tage-managing the school activity with her peer. These examples llustrate why it is so important for children to be able to con- rol their own bilingual communicative resources as a preparation or their school experiences and how these resources can serve as strengths” (Zentella, 2005) and “funds of knowledge” (González,

oll, & Amanti, 2005) for the children as they learn how to coordi-

ate action and read together with their peers (Cekaite et al., 2014; enishi & Dyson, 2009; Gumperz & Cook-Gumperz, 2005; Kyratzis t al., 2009; Kyratzis, 2014; Orellana, 1999).

ucation 41 (2017) 7–19

In summary, the examples here contribute to a deeper under- standing of the diverse ways in which children use verbal resources, their bodies and the material environment to accomplish the doing of reading as a public and shared activity, including achieving the “professional vision” of book pages that is specific to the com- munity of classroom readers (C. Goodwin, 2013). The examples also contribute to a deeper understanding of how children learn to act in culturally appropriate ways over time in shared read- ing activities, including over microgenetic time and in situations of conflict, as children recalibrate exhibitions of reading to achieve peer attention (Melander, 2012). Finally, the examples illustrate how children’s exhibited reading and knoweldge states are part and parcel of how they build participation and forms of social organiza- tion and involvement in these peer reading events (M.H. Goodwin & Kyratzis, 2007; M.H. Goodwin & Kyratzis, 2012; M.H. Goodwin & Kyratzis, 2014; Kyratzis, 2004), thus underscoring the need to consider the social side of children’s reading together.

Acknowledgements

Funding for this project was made possible through UC MEXUS award #SB100057, OR20091231 for the project “Mexican- Indigenous and U.S. Mexican-Heritage Children’s Language Social- ization in Peer and Sibling-Kin Groups: Code-Switching and Language Ideology” (Amy Kyratzis & Lourdes de León, PIs). I am indebted to the children, parents, teachers, and administrators at the preschool where the study was conducted for their generous participation and support. I am also indebted to Lourdes de León, Ann-Carita Evaldsson, Marjorie Harness Goodwin, and Sarah Jean Johnson for comments on earlier drafts of this paper, although all errors are my own.

Appendix. Transcription Conventions

The transcription symbols are as follows: [ Left square bracket the beginning of overlapping talk ] Right square bracket the end of overlapping talk . Period falling intonation ? Question mark rising intonation , Comma continuing intonation – Dash abrupt cut-off = Equal sign talk produced without transition-space : Column prolonged sound. warm Underlining prominent syllable YOU’LL All caps loud speech ◦ Degree sign quiet Speech () Parentheses undecipherable speech. (x) Parentheses w/x’s undeciph. speech, x syllables (warm) Parenth. around words uncertain transcription {[ac]} “ac” in brackets accelerated speech (0.5) Number in parentheses Pause of designated no. seconds ↑ Upwards arrow Heightened pitch ((smiling)) Double parentheses Transcriber’s comments warm Italicized text English translation of Spanish

References

Avineri, N., & Johnson, E. J. (2015). Introduction. Invited forum: Bridging the “Lan- guage Gap”. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 25(1), 66–86.

Bhimji, F. (2005). Language socialization with directives in two Mexican immigrant families in South Central Los Angeles. In A.-C. Zentella (Ed.), Building on strength: Language and literacy in latino families and communities (pp. 60–76). New York: Teachers College Press.

Blommaert, J., Collins, J., & Slembrouk, S. (2005). Spaces of multilingualism. Language and Communication, 25, 197–216.

Blum-Kulka, S., Huck-Taglicht, D., & Avni, H. (2004). The social and discursive spec- trum of peer talk. Discourse Studies, 6(3), 307–328.

California Department of Education. (2008). California preschool learning founda-

tions (Vol. 1), language and literacy. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.

Cekaite, A., Blum-Kulka, S., Grøver, V., & Teubal, E. (2014). Children’s peer talk and learning: Uniting discursive, social, and cultural facets of peer interac- tions; Editors’ introduction. In A. Cekaite, S. Blum-Kulka, V. Grøver, & E. Teubal

nd Ed

d D

E

E

E

E

E

E

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

cesses. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Zentella, A. C. (2005). Building on strength: Language and literacy in Latino families

A. Kyratzis / Linguistics a

(Eds.), Children’s peer talk: Learning from each other (pp. 129–147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

e León, L. (This Issue). yson, A. H. (1991). The roots of literacy development: Play, pictures, and peers.

In B. Scales, M. Almy, A. Nicolopoulou, & S. M. Ervin-Tripp (Eds.), Play and the social context of development in early care and education (pp. 98–116). New York: Teachers College Press.

rickson, F. (1982). Taught cognitive learning in its immediate environments: A neglected topic in the anthropology of education. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 13(2), 149–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/aeq.1982.13.2.05x1831k

rickson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory: Ecologies of speaking and listening in every- day life. Malden, MA: Polity.

rickson, F. (2006). Definition and analysis of data from videotape: Some research procedures and their rationales. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 177–205). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Handbook.

rickson, F. (2010). The neglected listener: Issues of theory and practice in tran- scription from video in interaction analysis. In J. Streeck (Ed.), New adventures in language and interaction. John Benjamins.

valdsson, A.-C. (2002). Boys’ gossip telling: Staging identities and indexing (unac- ceptable) masculine behavior. Text, 22(2), 199–225.

valdsson, A.-C. (2007). Accounting for friendship: Moral ordering and category membership in preadolescent girls’ relational talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 40(4), 377–404.

askins, S. (1999). Children’s daily lives in a Mayan Village: A case study of culturally constructed roles and activities. In A. Göncü (Ed.), Children’s engagement in the world: Sociocultural perspectives (pp. 25–61). New York: Cambridge University Press.

enishi, C., & Dyson, A. H. (2009). Children, language, and literacy: Diverse learners in diverse times. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

offman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper and Row.

offman, E. (1981). Footing. In E. Goffman (Ed.), Forms of talk (pp. 124–159). Philadel- phia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

onzález, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing prac- tices in households, communities, and classrooms. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

oodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization. In Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.

oodwin, C. (1984). Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 225–246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

oodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Antrhopologist, 96(3), 606–633. oodwin, C. (2000). Pointing and the collaborative construction of meaning in apha-

sia. In Texas Linguistic Form (Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Symposium About Language and Society) – Austin SALSA), vol. 43 (pp. 67–76).

oodwin, C. (2006). Interactive footing. In E. Holt, & R. Clift (Eds.), Reporting talk: Reported speech and footing in conversation (pp. 16–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

oodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse and Society, 18(1), 53–73.

oodwin, C. (2010). Things and their embodied environments. In L. Malafouris, & C. Renfrew (Eds.), The cognitive life of things: Recasting boundaries of the mind (pp. 103–120). Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs.

oodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 8–23.

oodwin, C. (2015). Narrative as talk-in-interaction. In A. de Fina, & A. Geor- gakopoulou (Eds.), The Handbook of Narrative Analysis (pp. 195–218). Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

oodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (2004). Participation. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 222–244). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

oodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among black children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

oodwin, M. H. (1993). Accomplishing social organization in girls’ play: Patterns of competition and cooperation in an African American working-class girls’ group. In S. T. Hollis, L. Pershing, & M. J. Young (Eds.), Feminist theory and the study of folklore (pp. 149–165). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

oodwin, M. H. (2006). The hidden life of girls: Games of stance, status, and exclusion. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

oodwin, M. H., & Cekaite, A. (2013). Calibration in directive/response sequences in family interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 122–138.

oodwin, M. H., Cekaite, A., & Goodwin, C. (2012). Emotion as stance. In M. L. Sor- jonen, & A. Perakyla (Eds.), Emotion in interaction (pp. 16–43). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

oodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (2012). Car talk: Integrating texts, bodies, and chang- ing landscapes. Semiotica, 191, 257–286.

oodwin, M. H., & Kyratzis, A. (2007). Introduction: Children socializing children: Practices for negotiating the social order among peers. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 40(4), 279–289 [special issue].

oodwin, M. H., & Kyratzis, A. (2012). Peer language socialization. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp.

391–419). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

oodwin, M. H., & Kyratzis, A. (2014). Language and gender in children’s peer inter- actions. In M. Meyerhoff, J. Holmes, & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), The handbook of language, gender, and sexuality (2nd ed., pp. 509–528). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

ucation 41 (2017) 7–19 19

Gregory, E. (2001). Sisters and brothers as language and literacy teachers: Syn- ergy between siblings playing and working together. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 1(3), 301–322.

Griswold, O. (2007). Achieving authority: Discursive practices in Russian girls’ pre- tend play. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 40(4), 291–320.

Gumperz, J. J., & Cook-Gumperz, J. (2005). Making space for bilingual communicative practice. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(1), 1–24.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Heath, S. B. (2015). The simple and direct? Almost never the solution. Invited forum: Bridging the “Language Gap”. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 25(1), 66–86.

Hindmarsh, J., Reynolds, P., & Dunne, S. (2011). Exhibiting understanding: The body in apprenticeship. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 489–503.

Hinojosa, F. (2010). La Peor Señora del Mundo (Illustrated by Rafael Barajas).(3rd ed.). San Diego: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Inhelder, B., Bovet, H., & Sinclair, M. (1974). Learning and the developent of cognition. Paris, FR: Presses Universitaires de France.

Johnson, S.J. (This Issue). Johnson, S. J. (2017). Agency, accountability and affect: Kindergarten children’s

orchestration of reading with a friend. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction, 12, 15–31.

Johnson, S. J. (2015). The social and cognitive worlds of young children reading together (Doctoral dissertation). Los Angeles: University of California.

Kyratzis, A. (1999). Narrative identity: Preschoolers’ self-construction through narrative in same-sex friendship group dramatic play. Narrative Inquiry, 9, 427–455.

Kyratzis, A. (2004). Talk and interaction among children and the co-construction of peer groups and peer culture. Annual Review of Anthropology, 33, 625–649.

Kyratzis, A. (2007). Using the social organizational affordances of pretend play in American preschool girls’ interactions. Research on Language and Social Interac- tion, 40(4), 321–352.

Kyratzis, A. (2010). Latina girls’ peer play interactions in a bilingual Spanish- English U.S. preschool: Heteroglossia, frame-shifting, and language ideology. In A. Kyratzis, J. Reynolds, & A.-C. Evaldsson (Eds.). Heteroglossia, and language ide- ologies in children’s peer play interactions. Pragmatics, 20(4), 557–586 [Special issue].

Kyratzis, A. (2014). Peer interaction, framing, and literacy in preschool bilingual pretend play. In A. Cekaite, S. Blum-Kulka, V. Grøver, & E. Teubal (Eds.), Chil- dren’s peer talk: Learning from each other (pp. 129–147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kyratzis, A., Marx, T., & Wade, E. R. (2001). Preschoolers’ communicative compe- tence: Register shift in the marking of power in different contexts of friendship group talk. In H. Marcos (Ed.). Early pragmatic development. First Language, 21, 387–431 [Special issue].

Kyratzis, A., Tang, Y., & Köymen, S. B. (2009). Codes, code-switching, and context: Style and footing in peer group bilingual play. Multilingua-Journal of Crosscultural and Interlanguage Communication, 28(2–3), 265–290.

Lave, J. (1993). The practice of learning. In S. Chalklin, & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Linell, P. (1998). . Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives (Vol. 3) Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Martin, C., & Evaldsson, A.-C. (2012). Affordances for participation: Children’s appro- priation of rules in a Reggio Emilia School. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19, 51–74.

McHoul, A. W. (1990). The organization of repair in classroom talk. Language in Society, 19(3), 349–377.

Melander, H. (2012). Transformations of knowledge within a peer group. Knowing and learning in interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1, 232–248.

Melander, H., & Sahlström, F. (2009). In tow of the blue whale: Learning as interac- tional changes in topical orientation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1519–1537.

Moore, E. (This Issue). Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (2012). The theory of language socialization. In A. Duranti,

E. Ochs, & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 1–22). Oxford: Blackwell.

Orellana, M. F. (1999). Good guys and ‘bad’ girls: Identity construction by Latina and Latino student writers. In M. Bucholtz, A. C. Liang, & L. A. Sutton (Eds.), The gendered self in discourse (pp. 64–81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Orozco, J.-L., & Diaz, D. (2005). Rin, Rin, Rin, Do, Re, Mi: A picture book in Spanish and English. New York: Scholastic Inc.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organi- zation of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.

Stivers, T. (2010). An overiew of the question-response system in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2772–2781.

Street, B. (2003). What’s “new” in New Literacy Studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2).

Sulzby, E. (1985). Children’s emergent reading of favorite storybooks: A develop- mental study. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(4), 458–481.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological pro-

and communities. NY: Teachers College Press. Zentella, A. C. (2015). Books as the magic bullet. Invited forum: Bridging the “Lan-

guage Gap”. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 25(1), 66–86.