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

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

LINEDU-639; No. of Pages 13

Linguistics and Education xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Linguistics and Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/linged

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 Amy Kyratzis ∗ University of California, Santa Barbara, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 18 April 2017 Accepted 13 July 2017 Available online xxx Keywords: Children’s peer interactions Emergent reading Conversation analysis Participation Multilingualism Learning in interaction Multimodal interaction

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 orchestrate 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 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.

1. Introduction According to research on emergent literacy, “children in literate societies have been found to have knowledge about written language long before reading conventionally from print. It is suggested that they are sorting out oral and written language relationships” (Sulzby, 1985:458). According to Sulzby, many children who are read to frequently by their parents also play at “reading” favorite storybooks themselves; they have been described as “‘teaching themselves to read’ from favorite storybooks” that is, asking for a favored book “to be read over and over; correcting parents when they deviated from the text; or attempting to ‘read’ the book to themselves, to siblings, to dolls, or pets” (Sulzby, 1985:459). From these early literacy activities, children come away with a wealth of literacy skills long before they are actually reading. They develop a sense of story and story language, and come to understand that

∗ Correspondence to: Department of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, United States. E-mail address: [email protected]

pictures carry meaning and support the story (Sulzby, 1985). Many middle-class parents read to their children frequently and encourage these emergent literacy practices long before the children attend school (Sulzby, 1985). Exposure to these practices is believed to serve as a foundation for engaging in the literacy practices required in U.S. schools. We know from the work of linguistic anthropologists that literacy 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 culturally 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.,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.07.005 0898-5898/© 2017 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Please cite this article in press as: Kyratzis, A. 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. Linguistics and Education (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.07.005

G Model LINEDU-639; No. of Pages 13

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Kyratzis / Linguistics and Education xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

2

Gregory, 2001, who looked at mediation practices in interactions among child siblings at home), very little is known about peer support and about what children might learn about reading practices in real peer and sibling interactions. This study examines how bilingual Spanish-English speaking children of Mexican heritage enrolled in a bilingual Spanish-English Head Start preschool in California practice reading books together, particularly, how they enact and orchestrate in play the activity of reading a book aloud to a peer. This reading activity is modeled for the children by their teacher. After breakfast each day, individual children are asked to read books aloud to their peers at their small groupwork table. Although Sulzby refers to such practices as “reading,” placing the verb “reading” inside quotation marks to denote the fact that children are not actually decoding written text from the page, for purposes of this paper, as children are engaging in emergent literacy practices of linking pictures and symbols on the page to orally dictated story content, I consider these practices as reading and will henceforth refer to them as such. Like all literacy practices, the practice of reading to peers at the small group table is culturally framed, consistent with the literacy practices of a particular community (Heath, 1983; Ochs & Schieffelin, 2012; Street, 2003), which in this case, is the community of English-medium public school education in California, for which the preschool is preparing the children. The children show agency in that they appropriate this reading activity and enact it among themselves during free play time (see also de León, this issue). Within these enactments of reading to a peer, the children frame the interaction and signal for one another “what it is they are doing now, displaying for others what constitutes the common scene in front of them” (M.H. Goodwin, 1993:160; Goffman, 1974). Children must project their own understandings of the actions that constitute reading and have those understandings ratified (or not) (C. Goodwin, 1984, 2000, 2010, 2013; M.H. Goodwin, 1990) by other peers. Through these enactments then, children can learn a great deal about what constitutes reading in their classroom (and in the American school system more generally). To understand how the children frame these enactments of reading to a peer, how the peers ratify reading actions in the sequence of interaction, and what the children learn about written language and literacy through participating in these activities, I take an approach to understanding such cognitive activities which is rooted in conversational analysis, ethnography, and interactional sociolinguistics, and which I review below.

2. Exhibiting reading: cognition situated in human interaction 2.1. Participation The approach which I take to analyzing these child peerbased reading activities is rooted in recent accounts of situated cognitive activities which have been framed within conversational analysis (C. Goodwin, 1984, 1994, 2000, 2010), ethnography, and interactional sociolinguistics (Erickson, 1982, 2004; Gumperz & Cook-Gumperz, 2005). Charles Goodwin recommends that an activity such as a story-telling (or in the case under study here, the activity of one peer reading to another) be viewed as a “multi-party interactive field” (C. Goodwin, 2006:12) within which “multiple participants are building in concert with each other the actions that define and shape their lifeworld” (2000:75). What structures constitute the reading, story, sentence, etc. are specified, not through interviewing, but “through study in detail of the actions [participants] perform as the talk itself emerges” (C. Goodwin, 1984:243). The participants who shape the reading, narrative, etc. include hearers as well as speakers (C. Goodwin, 1984, 2015; C. Goodwin &

M.H. Goodwin, 2004; Erickson, 2004), all of whom have “visible cognitive lives” (C. Goodwin, 2015:1). Participants’ understandings’ 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. Goodwin & 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 & Goodwin, 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 possible 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 processes 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 participation 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 documented in other studies of children’s narratives of different sorts, including pretend play and future planning narratives and gossip stories (Evaldsson, 2002, 2007; M.H. Goodwin, 2006; Kyratzis, 1999, 2007). Relying on Goffman’s notions of framing and footing (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 organization 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 consider 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 meaningmaking resources together” (Goodwin, 2013:16). These include: “the mutual orientation of the participants’ bodies toward each other,” language, “hands making environmentally coupled gestures,” 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 participation frameworks “epistemic ecologies” (C. Goodwin, 2013:8, 15–16, 20, 21; 2010). These ecologies or environments are crucial, as “cognition emerges through the ongoing and systematic transformation of environments that contain a range of structurally

Please cite this article in press as: Kyratzis, A. 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. Linguistics and Education (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.07.005

G Model LINEDU-639; No. of Pages 13

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Kyratzis / Linguistics and Education xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

different kinds of resources that mutually interact with each other” (C. Goodwin, 2010:5). In understanding the “ecology” (Erickson, 2004) surrounding the activity of reading to a peer, one must focus not only on a child or more expert peer who is leading a reading, but also on participants who are recipients of or audience to a reading (Erickson, 2010, 2004; C. Goodwin, 1984, 2015). The understandings of novices, trainees and other participants are displayed and monitored not only through talk, but through their gaze, bodily alignment, and other multimodal means (Hindmarsh, Reynolds, & Dunne, 2011). In my analysis, I will examine the resources and means by which children who are novices to reading and in the role of listeners demonstrate understandings as they are being read to by a (more expert) peer and how the peer leading the reading modifies their course of action to take into account the listener’s displayed understanding. Also central to these situated interactions is the way in which participants build upon the situated action of one another. Charles Goodwin argued for the importance of “the embodied participation framework” (Goodwin, 2010:17, 20), which can provide a “public substrate,” that is, “a place where diverse semiotic resources can be brought together and accumulated through time into a public configuration” (C. Goodwin, 2010:19–20; C. Goodwin, 2013:11), leading to further learning. Within such an “intercorporeal framework for mutual engagement,” children can build on prior action, thereby “recalibrating” and fine-tuning their attention and action (M.H. Goodwin & Cekaite, 2013:136, 130). In my analysis, I will explore how the embodied participation framework allows children to create a pubic substrate of shared attention within which they can build on one another’s embodied action, recalibrate action, and learn from one another. Not only are readings, narratives, sentences, etc. themselves constructed via the multi-party, multimodal, and locally situated practices described above, but the objects utilized in these activities are also transformed and constructed in “specific ways that are relevant to the distinctive interests of their particular community” (C. Goodwin, 2015:33). Archaelogists transform color patterns that they see in the dirt into “work-relevant discursive objects” (Goodwin, 2015:33). Experts “environmentally couple” (C. Goodwin, 2013:15, 16; Goodwin, 2010) talk with objects, (e.g., color patterns they see in the dirt), leading novice archaeologists to see the dirt in work-relevant ways, building the “professional vision that must be mastered” by young members of a profession (C. Goodwin, 1994; Goodwin, 2013:20). With regard to literacy development, Heath (1983) emphasized the importance of the practice of relating two-dimensional representations (e.g., pictures, print) seen on the page to three-dimensional objects in the real world and talking about these “displaced objects.” Achieving such a professional vision of what can be seen on the page is therefore essential to becoming a member of the community of classroom readers. My analysis will illustrate how children use environmental couplings of talk and gesture (Goodwin, 2013) as one type of exhibition of reading, and how these environmental couplings are fine-tuned and “accumulated” (2013:11) over the sequence of interaction as children recalibrate reading action to get the peer to attend to their reading. Within “epistemic ecologies” (C. Goodwin, 2013) of the type under discussion here, not only are readings, narratives, sentences, objects, etc. themselves co-constructed and oriented to in the interaction via the multi-party, multimodal, spatially and materially configured, publically exhibited, and locally situated practices described above, but the local epistemic identities of the participants as “knowing recipients” and “unknowing recipients” (C. Goodwin, 1981; see also C. Goodwin, 2013:12) are also publically exhibited and oriented to in the interaction and become consequential for that interaction in terms of how co-participants

3

design and reconstruct their utterances. The ways in which speakers 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 community 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 publically 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 material 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 demonstrate 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-intransformation” (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 structures 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 reading, 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.,

Please cite this article in press as: Kyratzis, A. 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. Linguistics and Education (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.07.005

G Model LINEDU-639; No. of Pages 13

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Kyratzis / Linguistics and Education xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

4

transformation of knowing how to read) occurring over turns in a single play or reading episode followed continuously. 4. The data The examples for this study are drawn from a larger study (Kyratzis, 2010) of children’s free play interactions conducted at a bilingual Spanish-English Head Start preschool center which serves economically disadvantaged families in a community in central California. The families served by this preschool are predominantly of Mexican heritage. The study combined ethnography with methods of talk-in-interaction (e.g., Erickson, 2006; M.H. Goodwin, 2006). Children in one classroom of the bilingual preschool were observed and videotaped weekly in their friendship groups in naturally occurring interactions during free play time; this specific cohort was followed longitudinally across two school years using ethnographic methods. Small group literacy activities between students and teachers were also recorded. Episodes of literacyrelated activity within friendship groups and between students and teachers were identified and transcribed using the conventions developed by Jefferson and described by Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson (1974, p. 731–733), (see Appendix). For 80–90% of the families served by the preschool, Spanish is the language spoken in the home. The data were collected several years after Proposition 227, which ended bilingual education in most public California elementary schools, was passed in California. Although the preschool is bilingual, in order to support children who will be going on to English-only kindergarten classrooms the following year, it is recommended to teachers that they use mainly English towards the end of the school year in small group work with those children. For those children in this classroom going on to kindergarten the following year, in small groupwork, the lead teacher would read to the children, and teach the letters and numbers increasingly in English as the school year progressed. However, she and the other teachers also used Spanish throughout the year, to reflect the fact that for the majority of the students, Spanish was the language spoken in the home. One literacy practice of the teachers in this classroom was to have individual children “read” to their peers at the small group table, while the teachers asked guiding questions. As will be seen, the children then appropriated this school genre and enacted it among themselves during free play time, applying 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 followed over time and episodes of literacy-related activity carried out among group members, such as pretending to read to one another, were identified and transcribed. I will present two examples from one friendship dyad of children, Frida1 and Nancy. The two examples are from different time points of the same academic year. Both children have stronger language competencies in Spanish than in English, although one peer, Frida, gains stronger English language competencies as the school year progresses. Frida is slightly older (by 3 ½ months) than Nancy and a more experienced reader. Neither of the children are actually reading, in the sense of decoding printed text on the page, but they engage in repeated pretend readings where they display many of the practices of reading, particularly emergent reading (Sulzby, 1985). The first example is from January (in this example, the children are aged 4 years, 1.5 mos. and 3 years, 9.5 mos.). The second example is from June of the same school year (in this example, the children are aged 4 years, 6.5 mos.; 4 years, 2 mos.).

1

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

In the first example, Frida, the more experienced reader in these play enactments, exhibits reading by performing “environmentally coupled gestures” (C. Goodwin, 2010, 2013), holding the book up and linking pictures to orally stated character descriptions 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 coupled 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 ˜ Senora 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-toa-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 multimodal resources, including prosody (“reading voice,” Gumperz & Cook-Gumperz, 2005) and holding the book up and facing it outward 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 “environmentally coupled gestures” (C. Goodwin, 2010, 2013) that she uses and through guiding what Nancy should see on the page, Frida demonstrates herself as a knowing reader. The example also illustrates how the peer, Nancy, exhibits that she is following or understanding 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 alignment 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 projecting 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).

Please cite this article in press as: Kyratzis, A. 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. Linguistics and Education (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.07.005

G Model LINEDU-639; No. of Pages 13

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Kyratzis / Linguistics and Education xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

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

In line 1, by holding up the book and indicating a spot on the page where Nancy should look, and giving an oral description, Frida uses an “environmentally coupled gesture” which articulates a relationship between the located sign (the picture on the page) and her talk or story-description (Goodwin & Goodwin, 2012:264) which she is conducting through reading voice. This relationship is an important aspect of picturebook reading (Sulzby, 1985) and “what counts as knowledge” of reading (Melander, 2012:240) in this classroom. By demonstrating these gestures, Frida exhibits herself as knowing how to read. She also exhibits her right to read to and instruct Nancy by pointing to a spot where Nancy should look. By looking, Nancy ratifies Frida’s projection of herself as knowing how to read and having the right to direct others’ attention to pictures on the page. She ratifies Frida’s projection of the picture of the bad woman as worthy of joint attention. She also exhibits that she aligns in the same way to the picture as Frida had indicated by turning her body away and holding up her arm (see line 2). The stance which she displays, of fear or warding away threat, exhibits in an embodied way (Hindmarsh et al., 2011) her understanding of Frida’s categorization and its relationship to the page; her stance display of turning away after looking at the page may in fact contribute to the constitution of the categorized, pictured character as “scary.” In Example 1B, Frida performs another “environmentally coupled gesture” (C. Goodwin, 2013; Goodwin & Goodwin, 2012); she juxtaposes her oral reading of an extended text describing several story actions, with the gestures of first holding the book up to Nancy, and then putting it down on the table and continuing to “read.” Nancy tracks the movement of the page with her body. In Example 1B, line 3, Frida holds the book up again. She signals a shift in her footing by commencing what seems like the action of the reading of text from a page; reading is signaled prosodically, by her using the staccato rhythm of what Gumperz and CookGumperz (2005) term “reading voice.” This consists of speaking “with a flattened almost monotone intonation, and staccato pronunciation” (2005:6). With this measured rhythm, she “reads,” “Esta vez en, la noche, era, oyeron todos corriendo.” (This time at night it was, they heard everyone running). This kind of measured tone is “inviting others to listen along” (2005:6) with her. Here, in contrast to Example 1A, Frida environmentally ties her oral reading of an extended text, (i.e., she “reads” several story events; this time at night it was, they heard everyone running) to her gesture of holding up a picture in a book. Indeed, Frida’s display of doing reading is

5

Example 1B.

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 engagement” (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 accumulated 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 literacy could be conveyed to Nancy. This lesson consists of what Nancy should “see” about the book pages, namely, that information 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 description of several actions, Frida is providing her peer with valuable information to help her learn “the professional vision” (C. Goodwin, 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 existing 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 coupling 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

Please cite this article in press as: Kyratzis, A. 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. Linguistics and Education (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.07.005

G Model LINEDU-639; No. of Pages 13

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Kyratzis / Linguistics and Education xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

6 Example 1C.

ira, está,” (look this look, it is,),2 to direct Nancy’s attention to the picture on the page. She simultaneously holds up the picture to underscore its worthiness of being seen. Nancy demonstrates that she has located what Frida indicated as important to look at by gazing at the page and demonstrating an audience response that is in keeping with the story content that Frida has been dictating. She exhibits scared affect; she covers her mouth with her hand (line 8). Again, as Frida had just been dictating story content about the townspeople hearing the bad woman approaching when she directed Nancy to look on the page, she is constituting through her environmentally coupled action, a relationship between story content that she is orally telling, and two-dimensional pictures depicted on the page. Moreover, this relationship that she is projecting is ratified by Nancy’s action of looking at the page and exhibiting a display of scared affect. So to summarize, at three different points across Example 1, we have seen Frida issuing some form of directive or projection for Nancy to look on the page (lines 1, 3, and 5), and all three times, Nancy has ratified this projection by tracking the page with her body or exhibiting an appropriate form of affect display. As Frida uses “environmentally coupled gestures” (C. Goodwin, 2010, 2013) projecting a relationship between story content that she is dictating orally and pictures that she is pointing to on the page, and Nancy follows these actions, Nancy too exhibits her understanding of the story, and of the relevance of the pictures to the story, through embodied means (Hindmarsh et al., 2011). Through these actions, one child, Frida, exhibits herself as a knowing readier and the other child, Nancy, exhibits herself as knowing how to be read to and follow another’s reading. These actions are important, not only for exhibiting reading, but for building social organization between the two children. As noted by Goodwin, “positions of leadership” are not only constituted by the opening move of a directive sequence, but through “the way in which requests from others are responded to, either ratifying or challenging 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, and 7), Frida’s directives or indications to look have been ratified by her “student;” Nancy shows the appropriate affect and bodily alignment by looking at the page and/or exhibiting through embodied means the indicated fear reaction. The hierarchical participant alignment of teacher/reader-leader to student/audience is accomplished over the sequence of interaction by the ways in which Frida projects the former role and Nancy ratifies it over and over (see also Johnson, this issue). Example 1D, which is a continuation of the same reading episode ˜ (Frida continues to read ‘La Peor Senora del Mundo’ to Nancy), shows Frida, in the reader role, projecting another important literacy lesson as part of her activity of doing reading to a peer, a known-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 look).

Example 1D.

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. However, 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 something on the page) with the story content that she has just been telling, Nancy becomes exposed to an expectation about accountable 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 knowing 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 knowing 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 trajectories” 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 example, 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 calling 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, demonstrating 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,

Please cite this article in press as: Kyratzis, A. 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. Linguistics and Education (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.07.005

G Model LINEDU-639; No. of Pages 13

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Kyratzis / Linguistics and Education xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

“competing project” (M.H. Goodwin & Cekaite, 2013:130), leading a competing reading, and performing her own environmentally coupled gestures and noticings, such that both girls will be demonstrating themselves as knowing readers. When Example 2 is compared to Example 1, we see that the positioning and alignment among participants and their exhibited epistemic identities has moved from a more hierarchical arrangement to a more egalitarian one. As noted by Melander, there is a “dynamic relationship between knowing and unknowing participants;” such relationships exist on “a continuum as unknowing participants [here, Nancy] become more knowledgeable” (2012:246). Example 2 will also illustrate microgenetic learning occurring, as both girls “recalibrate” (M.H. Goodwin & Cekaite, 2013:130) their embodied reading actions across turns in the example to try to get the peer to attend to their reading. Across turns in Example 2, through such recalibrations of her action, Nancy demonstrates closer and closer approximations to a publically recognized environmentally coupled gesture (C. Goodwin, 2010; 2013) used to demonstrate reading in this classroom, that of calling a peer’s attention to a 2-dimensional symbol on the page and orally reciting story content, projecting the content as carried by the symbol. Through documenting “these processes of transformation [of states of knowing, here, exhibitions of reading] and by constructing trajectories of knowing-in-transformation” (Melander, 2012:235) for Nancy across Examples 1 and 2, and across turns within Example 2, I will show Nancy learning both macrogenetically and microgenetically (Vygotsky, 1978) in the interaction. Example 1 was from January, when books were still read in Spanish in small groupwork (for the children going to kindergarten) in this classroom. By March, books were increasingly read in English; however, the teachers would still code-switch to Spanish to explain the content to the students. These practices are reflected in the reading activities of the children as will be seen in Example 2. Example 2 is from late in the year; it is from June. It is outdoor free play time, and the children are sitting under a tent set up by their teacher with a shelf of books. The first part of the example, Example 2A, demonstrates the competing projects of the two children, and each child’s efforts to get the other child to attend to their reading. In the first part of Example 2A, Frida exhibits herself as “reading” a book to her peer through using multiple contextualization devices. She uses the staccato rhythm of reading voice (Gumperz & Cook-Gumperz, 2005) when she says “my DADDY. my daddy say, no, mo:re, elephants, in, house” (lines 1–2). This prosody invites others to follow along with her. She also holds the book up and faces it outward, forming an “intercorporeal framework for mutual engagement” (M.H. Goodwin & Cekaite, 2013:136) that would, if ratified, accomplish the alignment of a child reading to a peer. However, as line 2 indicates (see Figure), Nancy has arranged herself in a competing arrangement whereby she is looking down at her own book. In other words, Nancy is not aligning her gaze with Frida’s reading action, as she did in Example 1. Similar to what Goodwin and Cekaite (2013) found for children and parents negotiating the ongoing progress of parent–child communicative projects like getting a child to bed, where “children can derail the agreed-upon activity trajectory by demonstrating their unavailability for the requested action, (for example, by displaying their engagement in their own competing projects)” (2013:130), Nancy here is demonstrating her engagement in her own, competing, reading. As we will see, both children will use a range of moves, both verbal and embodied, to “recalibrate” (Goodwin & Cekaite, 2013) the reading action and mobilize their peer’s alignment with their reading project. As Example 2A continues, Frida proceeds to read in lines 3–4, but in line 6, Nancy, who has been leafing through her own book (Curious George), lifts it up slightly off her lap and calls out about something pictured in it, using the hybrid English-Spanish construction

7

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

“El mon,key!” Her identification of the pictured object as “monkey” 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

Please cite this article in press as: Kyratzis, A. 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. Linguistics and Education (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.07.005

G Model LINEDU-639; No. of Pages 13

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Kyratzis / Linguistics and Education xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

8 Example 2B.

Example 2B, cont.

resources (Spanish) that she is more comfortable with, she initiates her own reading and makes a “noticing” (M.H. Goodwin & C. Goodwin, 2012), and begins to pair her oral noticing with a gesture of showing the book to Frida, exhibiting the type of environmentally coupled gestures (C. Goodwin, 2010) that Frida was using in Example 1. However, she does not seem to realize that she has to lift the book higher and turn it around in order for Frida to see it (see line 6). Frida is preoccupied with her own book and does not look anyway. As the interactional sequence continues (Example 2B), Nancy will be seen “recalibrating” (M.H. Goodwin & Cekaite, 2013) her reading action, using a range of embodied and vocal practices of reading to a peer as she attempts to mobilize her peer’s attention to her reading.In line 10 of Example 2, Nancy, having elicited no response of looking from Frida, puts her book down for a moment and looks at Frida as Frida reads “Me. With. Bird. I (didn’t know), mom and boy. I-” Starting in line 11, Nancy launches a sequence of moves to get Frida’s attention. First, as Frida finishes her turn, Nancy looks down at her own book and struggles to turn the pages, apparently searching for a page. She says in line 11, very fast, seemingly excitedly, “cómo se llama la calle Frida? (es grandote)” What do you call the street Frida? (it’s big). As she does this, she finishes struggling to turn the page to the place she is talking about; having located it, she rests her hand on it (see line 11 and Figure). When compared to her reading action in line 6, where she had called out “El monkey,” Line 11 is significant because Nancy has “recalibrated” her reading action to get Frida to look at her. The question format which she uses represents a recalibration from the type of move that she had made in line 6, which was to call out an identification of a two-dimensional representation on the page. To ask a question is similar to what her more expert peer Frida had done in line 10 of the previous example, Example 1, where she asked, “¿Por qué estaba sola?” (Why she was by herself) as she pointed to a spot on the page. Calling out a question may increase the social-invitational force of Nancy’s reading action; questions call for a response whereas picture-identifications or “noticings” alone may not necessarily achieve uptake (Goodwin & Goodwin, 2012:272). In struggling to locate the page that shows the street, Nancy also exhibits some understanding (Hindmarsh et al., 2011) that three-dimensional things orally being described can be pictured as two-dimensional objects and seen on the page. However, in line 11, she is the only one seeing the pictured object; she is not, in accordance with reading practice, using gesture in such a way so as to get her peer, Frida, to see the page (see line 11 of Example 2B). That is, she is not holding it up to her. Yet, as the continuation of Example 2B will indicate, all is not lost. In response to the fact that Frida barely looked at Nancy or her book 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 & Goodwin, 2012:276) is a move that could intitiate the collaborative action 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 representations) 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 realworld 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), consisting 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 sitting 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 beginning 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,

Please cite this article in press as: Kyratzis, A. 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. Linguistics and Education (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.07.005

G Model LINEDU-639; No. of Pages 13

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Kyratzis / Linguistics and Education xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Example 2B: Concluding Part of the Segment.

and therefore her learning occurring microgenetically (Vygotsky, 1978) over the sequence of interaction. The concluding part of Example 2B illustrates Nancy sustaining the learning and professional vision that she had achieved through recalibrating her action (in response to her peer’s not looking) over the interactional sequence in Example 2.When, in response to continued non-responsiveness from Frida, Nancy says “awww” and gets a new book from the bookshelf, (as we saw her do in lines 15–16), and sees that Frida is still involved in her reading project (lines 17–18), she calls out a directive for Frida to look at the new book (“Look, (what I founded)!”), (line 20). She pairs this directive with a gesture of holding the book up (see line 20) to Frida, demonstrating herself as a more knowing reader (C. Goodwin, 2013; Melander, 2012) and showing that the learning that she had achieved through recalibration of her reading action across lines 11–14 has been sustained. Nancy in line 20 exhibits understanding that in order to get a peer to look at the book or picture being called out about, she must hold it up toward the peer. A more expert understanding of reading action is not seen, however, in that Nancy faces the back cover, rather than the front cover, of the book toward Frida (see line 20). Nonetheless, that she sustains and re-enacts a component of the posture that she learned across the “trajectory of knowing-in-transformation” (Melander, 2012:235) that was made visible for her across Example 2, documents that she is sustaining the learning that she had achieved across this episode of reading. Her action across the entire example shows her “further develop[ing]” her skill in the “activities central to the community” (C. Goodwin, 2015:34) of classroom readers as she played with her peer over the sequence of turns in this reading enactment. In this way, these peer events constitute true “ecologies for peer learning” (Erickson, 1982, 2004; Johnson, this issue). 7. Use of a known-answer comprehension question to recalibrate action and achieve a particular “intercorporeal participation framework”: from competing readings to one peer reading to another So far, we have seen both children attempting to read to one another in Example 2. They have used attempts to hold up the book and use reading voice or call out object-identifications or questions about the pictured objects to invite the other child to attend to their book and to project that they have the right to determine what the other child sees (or listens to) and “what deserves attention in the moment” (Johnson, 2015:92). However, neither child has received the peer’s attention and action of looking. They have been at odds with one another. This competitive, albeit egalitarian, participation

9

Example 2C.

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 recalibrates (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 codeswitch 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 competing “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 effective 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

Please cite this article in press as: Kyratzis, A. 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. Linguistics and Education (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.07.005

G Model LINEDU-639; No. of Pages 13 10

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Kyratzis / Linguistics and Education xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Example 2C, cont.

and exhibits the state of her own knowledge of reading as not being quite up to that of Frida (Melander, 2012). It is notable here how the children appropriate aspects of the classroom literacy curriculum (i.e., here questions that test story understanding) and strategically adapt them to provide particular “affordances for participation” (Martin & Evaldsson, 2012) in the local peer interaction; they use them to project and establish particular forms of social organization between themselves (M.H. Goodwin, 1990). As Example 2C continues, after Nancy fell short of answering Frida’s question, Frida evaluates Nancy’s reply, and assumes a stance indicating that she knows better than her peer. Frida moves in to take full advantage of the fact that Nancy doesn’t know. She initiates a repair-sequence (McHoul, 1990; see Johnson, this issue) shrugging her shoulders, shaking her head “no” and making a self-satisfied, “too-bad” face (see line 24 and Figure), correcting and evaluating Nancy and thereby shoring up the projection of herself as being in the role of a more knowing reader (Melander, 2012). As noted by M.H. Goodwin, 1990 (see also Johnson, this issue), although other-correction may be a dispreferred form of correction in student–teacher interactions, as it is more aggravated, it is not a dispreferred form of peer correction, and in using it here, Frida is being quite direct in her bid to project herself in the superior role (here, that of a more expert reader). Her embodied display of stance and affect (the shrug, headshake, and “too bad” facial expression”) accompanying the correction point up the poor performance of the “student” and her own superior knowledge. Frida’s display of affective stance provides crucial information about how she is orienting to the interaction and underscores the social force of her evaluation (C. Goodwin, 2007; M.H. Goodwin & Cekaite, 2013; Goodwin, Cekaite, & Goodwin, 2012). Through these means, she effectively enacts a peer-based form of social control (see Johnson, this issue). She then, in the next action in the sequence, juxtaposes this display of the inadequacy of her peer’s knowledge with a display of her own greater knowledge by

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 “environmentally 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 correspondence further by turning the page around, looking at it, and ˜ estaba jugando futbol y le dijo, summarizing the story, “Que el nino 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 without 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 saying 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 actually 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 environmentally 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 “introducing 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 particular 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 themselves constantly subject to transformation (Melander, 2012). As Nancy would not follow Frida’s reading in the earlier part of Example 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

Please cite this article in press as: Kyratzis, A. 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. Linguistics and Education (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.07.005

G Model LINEDU-639; No. of Pages 13

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Kyratzis / Linguistics and Education xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

display of knowledge of reading. The relative knowledge states and hence participant positions as exhibited by the two children are thus now once again more asymmetrically arranged, as they were in Example 1. In constructing “trajectories of knowing-in-transformation” (Melander, 2012:235) for a pair of children over time, we can see how exhibitions of knowing how to read are constantly recalibrated and negotiated by the children. As Nancy was shown to be learning across the first parts of Example 2 through exhibiting transformation of her states of knowing (Melander, 2012:235), it can be seen that over Example 2, Frida was also demonstrating transformation of her state of knowing and therefore could also be said to have demonstrated learning. She did so by recalibating her publicly visible reading action to a more advanced form of an environmentally coupled gesture, that is, one of locating where the entire summary of the story, rather than an individual story object or story action, could be seen on the page. The children’s teacher tended to read books increasingly in English as the school year progressed. When we compare Frida’s reading in Example 1 to her reading in Example 2, it is notable that, as a child who had much stronger Spanish than English language competencies at the beginning of the school year, she uses English for the bookreading all through the first two parts of Example 2. The shift across the two examples suggests that although the ability to use Spanish no doubt supported her earlier reading attempts in the school year (i.e., in Example 1), she is, by Example 2, learning how to act in the culturally appropriate ways of reading modeled in this classroom (Heath, 1983). Fortunately for the bilingual children of this classroom, Frida’s teacher, later in the school year, though reading increasingly in English, would still often switch to Spanish to explain English book content to the children, and it is notable that the teacher’s uses of local diversified educational practice (Blommaert, Collins, & Slembrouk, 2005) were reflected in Frida’s own practices, those of shifting to Spanish to frame a shift in her footing (Goffman, 1981) at the end of Example 2, in part C, from reading the story, to questioning, commenting on, and explaining the story to Nancy. Similarly, the use of Spanish in this classroom was also beneficial for Nancy’s participation; when she began to make her own contributions of reading action, as we saw her doing in Example 2, she did so almost entirely in Spanish.

8. Conclusions The activity of reading to a peer is an interactively achieved phenomenon (Johnson, 2017). The child leading the reading uses a range of embodied and multimodal resources, including prosody (reading voice) and holding the book up facing outward to the peer, to invite the peer’s attention and to indicate what the peer should see or attend to in the book. For the bilingual children of this study, these resources include bilingual resources. Concomintantly, the peer being read to uses a range of embodied resources to exhibit that they are attending to the reading, (including tracking the book page with their gaze, and showing embodied affective reactions to the story content, as we saw Nancy using in Example 1) (Hindmarsh et al., 2011), thereby demonstrating the rich “cognitive, reflexive life of the hearer” (Goodwin & Goodwin, 2004:240). If the peer does not display these embodied forms of attention, the child leading the reading recalibrates (M.H. Goodwin & Cekaite, 2013) her efforts to get the peer to attend. Closer and closer approximations of the environmentally coupled gestures and other actions that count as knowledge of reading can be learned and emerge through these interactional processes. These examples contribute to a deeper understanding of how children learn how to act in culturally appropriate ways in reading activities and how children’s appropriation of the doing of

11

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 classroom. 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 macrogenetically 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 occurring 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 documenting 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 “learning 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 coupled gesture) after her action up to that point had not successfully achieved Nancy’s attention. By illustrating how children’s learning 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. Goodwin, 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, laminated fields of action and a “public substrate” for further learning about picture book reading, and for coming to “see” and collaboratively 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

Please cite this article in press as: Kyratzis, A. 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. Linguistics and Education (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.07.005

G Model LINEDU-639; No. of Pages 13 12

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Kyratzis / Linguistics and Education xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

issue). In this analysis, the use of temporally unfolding excerpts and line drawings, rather than linguistic descriptions alone, were essential for capturing the diverse and subtle ways in which children use their bodies and the material environment to accomplish relevant action and organize the doing of reading as a public and shared activity over time. These examples illustrate the embodied nature of reading and how the “environmentally coupled gestures” (C. Goodwin, 2013) used by the children in this study are important for literacy acquisition. Heath (1983) emphasizes the need for children to demonstrate the ability to relate two-dimensional representations on the page to three-dimensional objects in the real world and talk about these “displaced objects” in order for them to be considered as exhibing the culturally required practices that count as reading in “Maintown” classrooms. Sulzby (1985) also found that white middle-class children who engaged in repeated readings of favorite picture books with their parents at this age took away a wealth of school-required literacy practices from these activities, including demonstrating the understanding that pictures carry story meaning. The California Department of Education’s (2008) Preschool Foundations for Language and Literacy, which set guidelines for what children are expected to know by 45 and 60 months of age, also argue for the importance of such gestures by including embodied aspects of reading in the Foundations (e.g., “Display appropriate book-handling behaviors and knowledge of print conventions;” p. 63). The examples here illustrate some of the ways in which these embodied practices so crucial to achieving the “professional vision” of book pages needed for the community of American classroom picture book readers can be learned and emerge interactionally among peers as they read to one another and build local social order 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, the reading to a peer activities also enable children to enact particular forms of social organization among participants (Goodwin & Goodwin, 2004; M.H. Goodwin, 1990, 2006; C. Goodwin, 2015; Griswold, 2007; Johnson, this issue; Kyratzis et al., 2001; Kyratzis, 2007; Martin & Evaldsson, 2012; Melander, 2012). The child who is attempting to control what the other peer sees or listens to may or may not have the projection of their right to do so ratified by the other peer over the sequence of interaction, resulting in either hierarchical (Examples 1 and 2C) or egalitarian (though contested), (Examples 2A and 2B) forms of social organization. These social organizational affordances of reading to a peer are highly motivating to children (Blum-Kulka, Huck-Taglicht, & Avni, 2004; Cekaite, Blum-Kulka, Grøver, & Teubal, 2014; Kyratzis, 2014; Martin & Evaldsson, 2012). By being aware of children’s own goals in reading with one another, educators might better design and facilitate such activities in the classroom (Dyson, 1991). In this bilingual preschool setting, Spanish language resources were a major resource that children could draw upon to frame their readings (e.g., Frida in Example 1) or to use in order to participate in competing bookreadings with a peer (e.g., Nancy in Example 2). Code-switching to Spanish was also a resource that Frida used for framing shifts in phase of the reading activity or “communicative project” (Linell, 1998; Moore, this issue) from main story action to side-explanations (Example 2C), thereby affording her a tool for stage-managing the school activity with her peer. These examples illustrate why it is so important for children to be able to control their own bilingual communicative resources as a preparation for their school experiences and how these resources can serve as “strengths” (Zentella, 2005) and “funds of knowledge” (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2005) for the children as they learn how to coordinate action and read together with their peers (Cekaite et al., 2014; Genishi & Dyson, 2009; Gumperz & Cook-Gumperz, 2005; Kyratzis et al., 2009; Kyratzis, 2014; Orellana, 1999).

In summary, the examples here contribute to a deeper understanding 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 community 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 reading 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 organization 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 “MexicanIndigenous and U.S. Mexican-Heritage Children’s Language Socialization 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: [ ] . ? , = : warm YOU’LL ◦

() (x) (warm) {[ac]} (0.5) ↑ ((smiling)) warm

Left square bracket Right square bracket Period Question mark Comma Dash Equal sign Column Underlining All caps Degree sign Parentheses Parentheses w/x’s Parenth. around words “ac” in brackets Number in parentheses Upwards arrow Double parentheses Italicized text

the beginning of overlapping talk the end of overlapping talk falling intonation rising intonation continuing intonation abrupt cut-off talk produced without transition-space prolonged sound. prominent syllable loud speech quiet Speech undecipherable speech. undeciph. speech, x syllables uncertain transcription accelerated speech Pause of designated no. seconds Heightened pitch Transcriber’s comments English translation of Spanish

References Avineri, N., & Johnson, E. J. (2015). Introduction. Invited forum: Bridging the “Language 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 spectrum of peer talk. Discourse Studies, 6(3), 307–328. California Department of Education. (2008). California preschool learning foundations (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 interactions; Editors’ introduction. In A. Cekaite, S. Blum-Kulka, V. Grøver, & E. Teubal

Please cite this article in press as: Kyratzis, A. 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. Linguistics and Education (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.07.005

G Model LINEDU-639; No. of Pages 13

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Kyratzis / Linguistics and Education xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

(Eds.), Children’s peer talk: Learning from each other (pp. 129–147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. de León, L. (This Issue). Dyson, 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. Erickson, 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 Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory: Ecologies of speaking and listening in everyday life. Malden, MA: Polity. Erickson, 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. Erickson, F. (2010). The neglected listener: Issues of theory and practice in transcription from video in interaction analysis. In J. Streeck (Ed.), New adventures in language and interaction. John Benjamins. Evaldsson, A.-C. (2002). Boys’ gossip telling: Staging identities and indexing (unacceptable) masculine behavior. Text, 22(2), 199–225. Evaldsson, 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. Gaskins, 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. Genishi, C., & Dyson, A. H. (2009). Children, language, and literacy: Diverse learners in diverse times. NewYork: Teachers College Press. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper and Row. Goffman, E. (1981). Footing. In E. Goffman (Ed.), Forms of talk (pp. 124–159). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization. In Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press. Goodwin, 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. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Antrhopologist, 96(3), 606–633. Goodwin, C. (2000). Pointing and the collaborative construction of meaning in aphasia. In Texas Linguistic Form (Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Symposium About Language and Society) – Austin SALSA), vol. 43 (pp. 67–76). Goodwin, 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. Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse and Society, 18(1), 53–73. Goodwin, 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. Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 8–23. Goodwin, C. (2015). Narrative as talk-in-interaction. In A. de Fina, & A. Georgakopoulou (Eds.), The Handbook of Narrative Analysis (pp. 195–218). Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (2004). Participation. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 222–244). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among black children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Goodwin, 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. Goodwin, M. H. (2006). The hidden life of girls: Games of stance, status, and exclusion. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Goodwin, M. H., & Cekaite, A. (2013). Calibration in directive/response sequences in family interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 122–138. Goodwin, M. H., Cekaite, A., & Goodwin, C. (2012). Emotion as stance. In M. L. Sorjonen, & A. Perakyla (Eds.), Emotion in interaction (pp. 16–43). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (2012). Car talk: Integrating texts, bodies, and changing landscapes. Semiotica, 191, 257–286. Goodwin, 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]. Goodwin, 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. Goodwin, M. H., & Kyratzis, A. (2014). Language and gender in children’s peer interactions. In M. Meyerhoff, J. Holmes, & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), The handbook of language, gender, and sexuality (2nd ed., pp. 509–528). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

13

Gregory, E. (2001). Sisters and brothers as language and literacy teachers: Synergy 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’ pretend 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 Se˜ nora 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 Interaction, 40(4), 321–352. Kyratzis, A. (2010). Latina girls’ peer play interactions in a bilingual SpanishEnglish U.S. preschool: Heteroglossia, frame-shifting, and language ideology. In A. Kyratzis, J. Reynolds, & A.-C. Evaldsson (Eds.). Heteroglossia, and language ideologies 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.), Children’s peer talk: Learning from each other (pp. 129–147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kyratzis, A., Marx, T., & Wade, E. R. (2001). Preschoolers’ communicative competence: 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 appropriation 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 interactional 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 organization 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 developmental study. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(4), 458–481. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Zentella, A. C. (2005). Building on strength: Language and literacy in Latino families and communities. NY: Teachers College Press. Zentella, A. C. (2015). Books as the magic bullet. Invited forum: Bridging the “Language Gap”. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 25(1), 66–86.

Please cite this article in press as: Kyratzis, A. 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. Linguistics and Education (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.07.005