View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Children's Language Use in ECEC in a Child Perspective

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Children's Language Use in ECEC in a Child Perspective
Language: English
Authors: Ahrenkiel, Annegrethe, Holm, Lars, Eilenberg, Laura Østergaard
Source: Ethnography and Education. 2021 16(4):420-436.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2021
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Descriptors: Ethnography, Child Care Centers, Foreign Countries, Language Usage, Early Childhood Education, Play, Video Technology, Preschool Children, Interaction Process Analysis, Language Acquisition, Rural Areas, Vocabulary Development, Childrens Attitudes
Geographic Terms: Denmark
DOI: 10.1080/17457823.2021.1943699
ISSN: 1745-7823
Abstract: With inspiration from research in linguistic ethnography and children's perspectives, this article examines children's language use in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in a child perspective. The article is based on ethnographic fieldwork including video recordings from four children's entire days in a Danish day care centre. A multimodal analysis of an extended play sequence demonstrates how children's interactional language use is a creative and collective process that provides multiple opportunities to use and develop language practices, where children constantly align with each other to continue their common endeavours. The findings point to a need for broadening the conceptual understanding of language and of children's language learning as an integral part of children's everyday life in ECEC.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2021
Accession Number: EJ1309165
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFTY-CZQsF2kU3ALpuNIi-xAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDExPVtjeb7tXgxplnQIBEICBmkOhCW8SSeTmMm54n7Y-1pGgh1rragci7vpEpyRVMbGYbeK9PkK4-oAU_W059p32UhcxrDc_ZGuyA_rh6z61c8piZAuAy6_yKI457lgoAmqvnqlLEQ8w6QwL1DReRxkI3Zboey3pEOolxVn00VHr_XuXHK7FrMBJUJ7B0VAGVCuAGCYfuN69qIzX8uzZDCVSmQkCS2bBI8cVI7c=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0152395949;[15uw]01oct.21;2021Sep14.03:02;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0152395949-1">Children's language use in ECEC in a child perspective </title> <p>With inspiration from research in linguistic ethnography and children's perspectives, this article examines children's language use in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in a child perspective. The article is based on ethnographic fieldwork including video recordings from four children's entire days in a Danish day care centre. A multimodal analysis of an extended play sequence demonstrates how children's interactional language use is a creative and collective process that provides multiple opportunities to use and develop language practices, where children constantly align with each other to continue their common endeavours. The findings point to a need for broadening the conceptual understanding of language and of children's language learning as an integral part of children's everyday life in ECEC.</p> <p>Keywords: Children's language use; children's perspectives; linguistic ethnography; multimodality; language development</p> <hd id="AN0152395949-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Children's language development in preschool has become a key focus of efforts to reduce social inequality and increase school readiness in many Western countries in recent years (Hackett, MacLure, and McMahon [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref1">19</reflink>]; MacRae [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref2">24</reflink>]). The strategies of the interventions are generally aimed at increasing the number of words spoken by children and have been discussed and analysed as part of a so-called word-gap discourse (MacRae [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref3">24</reflink>]) or as 'wordism' (Blum [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref4">8</reflink>]). An example of this general trend is evident in contemporary policy discourse in Denmark. Regularly highlighted by politicians is a research finding that shows that 'a large group of children are two years behind when they start school' (Mainz and Valeur [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref5">25</reflink>]). Here, being 'two years behind' is presented as a problem requiring policy measures involving increased testing of all children from an earlier age and pedagogical interventions aimed at strengthening language development for those children who perform poorly in tests as a means to tackle socio-economic discrepancies.</p> <p>The research finding that children are 'two years behind' is based on language tests that draw on a prevailing <emph>structural</emph> approach to language. A structural approach to language implies that language is viewed as a decontextualised and universal phenomenon against the backdrop of conventional written language (Papen [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref6">30</reflink>]). The implication of this understanding for ECEC might be that children's language development is seen as a question of acquiring vocabulary and language form. In such an acquisition process, children are basically given a role as 'apprentice grammarians' (Cook-Gumperz [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref7">9</reflink>]) who lack words, while adults take on the role as donors of language. Researchers have argued that such a testing strategy and its related practices might lead to a pathologisation of groups of children and to language practices in ECEC that conceive of children's language development as a question of adult-led training (Ahrenkiel and Holm [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref8">2</reflink>]; Adair, Colegrove, and McManus [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref9">1</reflink>]). This is certainly the case in Denmark, which is generally characterised by a play-based pedagogy, except for many of the programmes and interventions designed to strengthen language learning. By implementing such interventions aimed generally at reducing the word gap, a one-way adult–child learning process might become the default. In such a perspective, little or no attention is paid to children as resourceful and creative constructors of language; consequently, research on how language is a key element in children's everyday practices, and on child–child interaction and child perspectives, is often given little priority (Ahrenkiel and Holm [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref10">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>In this article, we present linguistic ethnography as an alternative to structural understandings of language and demonstrate how children's language must be understood as a messy, multimodal, contextualised and interactional activity (Pennycook [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref11">32</reflink>]; Wagner [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref12">39</reflink>]), and children as creative, improvising, playful subjects (Cook [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref13">10</reflink>]). The potentials of such an understanding are demonstrated through close analysis of an extended sequence from a video recording of children's whole days in ECEC. The overall research question is: <emph>What characterises children's interactional language use in ECEC and how might this broaden our understanding of language and language learning?</emph></p> <p>In the first section of this article, we present and discuss approaches and findings in linguistic ethnography-oriented research and present theoretical understandings and approaches to the concept of child perspective. After a methodological discussion of using video recordings to analyse children's interactional language use in ECEC, we present the site and conduct a qualitative analysis of an example from our material that demonstrates central characteristics of children's interactional language use in ECEC. The theoretical and political implications of our investigation are discussed in the final section of the article.</p> <hd id="AN0152395949-3">Previous research</hd> <p>A majority of the studies that share our critique of structural approaches to language and language development can be identified within the field of linguistic ethnography. In this field, language is understood as a contextual and social activity and as a communicative, intentional, multimodal and interactional accomplishment (Hymes [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref14">20</reflink>]; Pennycook [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref15">31</reflink>]; Maybin and Tusting [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref16">26</reflink>]). Other studies draw on new materialist and post-human theory to challenge dominant understandings of language use as tool for meaning making (Hackett, MacLure, and McMahon [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref17">19</reflink>]; MacRae [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref18">24</reflink>]). Instead, they advocate a multisensory approach to language and ask questions such as what is lost when children begin to speak. In the following section, we will present some of the major findings of this research.</p> <p>Research in language socialisation is characterised by an interest in language acquisition and in how children as novices become participating members of culture through participation in its language routines with experts (Kyratzis [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref19">22</reflink>]; Kyratzis and Johnson [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref20">23</reflink>]; Schieffelin and Ochs [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref21">37</reflink>]). This research is often conducted in culturally and socially diverse settings and has demonstrated how norms of appropriate language use vary between social and cultural contexts. Researchers have related the structure of exchanges in caregiver-child communication to general cultural patterns and social habits, thus challenging universal and cognitive models of language. Research in language socialisation has contributed central insights into how linguistic and social development are closely connected. This has sometimes led to a preference for the term communication, rather than language, to cover the broad range of competences needed to participate successfully in everyday life (Schieffelin and Ochs [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref22">36</reflink>]), and much of the research focuses on caregiver-child communication. Our research draws on the points about communicative norms as being context-dependent, but we deviate from this research in not focusing on expert-novice relations because we are interested in linguistic interactions among peers.</p> <p>A small emerging field of language socialisation research has studied child–child communication (Cook-Gumperz [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref23">9</reflink>]; Kyratzis [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref24">22</reflink>]). Drawing on a broad view of language as communication, this research investigates how children's linguistic interactions with peers enable them to develop a broad set of communicative skills such as the ability to express intentions, understanding of others, and understanding of activity and of context. A central concept is 'contextualising cues', which is used to describe the many different ways children communicate their intentions and understandings of an activity, such as talking with a father's voice to persuade another child to play family (Cook-Gumperz [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref25">9</reflink>]). Cook-Gumperz argues that in the study of children's conversations we must put aside adult a priori assumptions about how to achieve communicative ends effectively. This research provides insights into language as essentially dialogic rather than monologic. However, the focus on achieving communicative ends tends to involve a very rationalist view of communication as always including specific intentions and goals. Even though the research intends to apply a child perspective to language, the question remains whether the emphasis on children's success in accomplishing their communicative ends seems to imply an adult perspective on the analysis of the linguistic encounters. Addressing meaning making from a child perspective implies asking questions such as what seems to make sense for the children rather than how successful they are at communicating certain messages.</p> <p>The research field of peer talk views children's communication with each other as a 'double opportunity space' (Blum-Kulka and Snow [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref26">7</reflink>]) that provides potentials for both the social-pragmatic and the discursive language learning processes of children (Bloome and Green [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref27">6</reflink>]). It combines research in linguistic anthropology with research in child cultures. This research has produced fine-tuned linguistic analyses of children's linguistic interactions, such as when they exchange cards, which show that these interactions not only entail specific child-cultural characteristics but also support the development of linguistic and pragmatic competences needed in adult life. The research in peer talk has focused on specific types of linguistic activities, for instance argumentative discourse (Ehrlich and Blum-Kulka [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref28">13</reflink>]), narrative performance (Nicolopoulou et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref29">28</reflink>]) and explanatory discourse (Monaco and Pontecorvo [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref30">27</reflink>]). The focus on specific types of linguistic interactions often leads to an analysis of sedentary or adult-arranged activities, leaving many of the typical interactions in children's everyday life unexamined. Many studies are based on audio-recorded, verbal language in short exchanges, indicating a knowledge gap of non-verbal language and interaction context. Hence, we need to take into account longer sequences of interactions, not only traditional, well-defined activities or types of discourse.</p> <p>Even though recent linguistic ethnography research points out the need of applying a multimodal perspective to children's language use, the empirical analyses seem to emphasise verbal language. In transcripts, features such as intonation are mentioned in terms of what they add to verbal language, which indicates that verbal language is still seen as the main source of communication and of researchers' interpretations. Flewitt underlines the higher status of verbal language by the use of concepts such as 'para-linguistic' and 'non-verbal' (Flewitt [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref31">15</reflink>]), designating what speech is not rather than what it is. This reflects a tendency to view these as epiphenomena rather than phenomena to be investigated in their own right. In Flewitt's own analysis of children's language use in home and in preschool (Flewitt [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref32">14</reflink>]), she noted multimodal features in separate columns in the transcriptions. Through specific attention to the multimodal features, she demonstrated how a child that was assessed as being behind linguistically as she rarely spoke in preschool, actually contributed very actively to the ongoing activities by using a broad range of semiotic resources. In our analysis, we also pay specific attention to multimodal features to investigate how they contribute to collective creations of meaning.</p> <p>Besides paying attention to multimodal features of meaning making, we would agree with Pennycook ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref33">32</reflink>]) who from a post-human perspective problematises an understanding of language as a pragmatic tool for representing and mastering the world. Embedded in this understanding is an assumption about mutual understanding 'as part of a bigger picture of brains passing words back and forth', thus assuming that the purpose of language is communication (Pennycook [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref34">32</reflink>], 103). Drawing on Pennycook ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref35">32</reflink>]), we believe that a better way of thinking about how communication and language work is to reconceptualise the concept of understanding and view it as a social process of alignment. Alignment is understood as ways in which people 'flexibly adapt to each other – bodies, interactions, words, environment – in ongoing processes of adaptation' (Pennycook [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref36">32</reflink>], 105). Based on this understanding, language can be seen as a series of verbal and bodily negotiations and adjustments and as having indeterminate qualities and capacities to build worlds in ongoing collective processes (MacRae [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref37">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>In our analysis, we intend to adopt this multisensory and semiotic approach to language and investigate language use as an assemblage with complex relations between verbal language, vocalisations, gestures, material objects and other children. An assemblage approach to research in ECEC seems a promising way to emphasise the non-human in research. However, we have chosen to focus on children as a major part of the assemblage, inspired by research into children's perspectives.</p> <hd id="AN0152395949-4">Children's perspectives</hd> <p>Research on children's perspectives aims to ask questions about children's experiences, interests and preoccupations in order to depart from adult assumptions about what seem to be fruitful or valued practices and about knowing in advance what is good for children. In continuation of a child-centred pedagogy and its emphasis on play, the goal of this research is to follow the children's interests and examine what seems to occupy them (Kampmann, Rasmussen, and Warming [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref38">21</reflink>]). The research also stresses that this ambition is always tentative as it is only possible to interpret children's perspectives through the lens of the adult researcher. However, a child perspective can be approached by the adult ethnographer trying to take on the role of 'least-adult' (Warming [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref39">40</reflink>]) or following the children around in the centre rather than attending to activities as they are defined by adult staff (Andersen and Kampmann [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref40">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>Following children around in centres clearly reveals that they direct their attention to other children most of the time, even during adult-directed activities (Ahrenkiel and Rasmussen [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref41">3</reflink>]; Tryggedsson [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref42">38</reflink>]; Ytterhus [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref43">41</reflink>]). A central finding from research in children's perspectives is the great importance of peer relations and play. Studies in peer culture highlight the more egalitarian and less authoritarian nature of peer relations compared to child–adult relations (Frønes [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref44">16</reflink>]), which means that negotiations among children take another form. Children risk losing a playmate if they do not settle a dispute, whereas they do not risk losing a parent if they do not comply with the parent's wishes.</p> <p>According to Sawyer ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref45">35</reflink>]), another finding from ethnographic studies is the improvisational nature of children's play. He compares childreńn's pretend play with improvisation theatre in which the characters and their actions emerge as a collective process instead of following a script. The actors sense from the cues of the others what the scene is and what could be relevant and constructive inputs and responses within that scene. Unlike improvisation theatre, children have the possibility of stepping out of the play frame to discuss the next moves; however, a great deal of children's play talk is in-frame, where they act and talk in the role they are playing. Our interest is in children's co-creative processes, inspired by Sawyer ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref46">35</reflink>]) notion of 'collective emergence'. In line with Goodwin and Goodwin ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref47">18</reflink>]), we investigate meaning making as a collective and embodied accomplishment. However, instead of interpreting the data with an interpretive cultural reproduction lens like Corsaro ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref48">11</reflink>]), we want to focus on how participants adapt to each other's actions to create mutual improvisations. Sawyer ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref49">35</reflink>]) has conducted close linguistic analyses of children's ways of entering play, and he points out the need for studying longer play sequences in which several play themes intertwine, disappear and reappear. Inspired by this and Pennycook´s concept of alignment, we highlight children's activities as flows of bodies in movement, where children adapt to, respond to, and elaborate on other children's moves as they are expressed both verbally and bodily.</p> <p>When applying a child perspective to children's language use we pay attention to the whole range of language activities that children are involved in, and more specifically to language use in situations that seemed to occupy them. These are often situations that pass unnoticed as important sites for language learning. To accomplish this we chose to follow and video tape four children during their <emph>entire</emph> days in the ECEC centre. This allowed us to investigate the different kinds of interactions they were involved in, and what seemed to be important to them.</p> <hd id="AN0152395949-5">Methodology</hd> <p>In the previous section, we argued for why we chose to use a video-ethnographic whole day method to investigate children's everyday linguistic interactions from a child perspective. In this section, we will describe the method in detail followed by a description of the site as a meso-level analysis of the institutional context.</p> <p>The ethnographic fieldwork of the project was carried out in a public Danish day care centre, in a group of 20 children aged 3–4 years old, in November and December 2019. Our understanding of language use as a contextualised and multimodal social practice motivated the choice of linguistic ethnography. In linguistic ethnography, the research interest is specifically directed towards language use and not towards general descriptions of peoples' lives based on extensive first-hand experiences. Pink and Morgan ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref50">34</reflink>]) argue that short-term ethnography using visual methods can be used to create data-intensive material, when the purpose of ethnography is focused and in dialogue with theoretical perspectives.</p> <p>We chose video recordings to be able to conduct a multimodal analysis (Paasch and Raudaskoski [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref51">29</reflink>]), which included the broad variation of modes used by the children to communicate, such as gesture, facial expression, intonation, posture, manipulation of objects and verbal language. Following a few days of preliminary observation by all three authors of the article with the purpose of being acquainted with the children, staff, daily routines and activities in the group, we introduced the video camera and recorded situations that caught our attention due to our interest in linguistic interactions. However, we soon found that this more random and selective approach was incongruent with our intentions of examining central characteristics of children's actual language use from the children's perspectives. We therefore decided to use a whole day method instead, in which we followed four different children during their entire days and systematically video recorded all the activities they were involved in in the centre (pausing when the children were asleep or in the bathroom). The children were followed on four different days and two researchers took turns at filming. We started filming the children when they arrived in the morning, and stopped when they left in the afternoon; they spend from five to nine hours a day at the centre. The data consists of more than 21 h of recordings from the four whole days and 10 h and 14 min of recordings from the previous days.</p> <p>When filming the children we tried to get as close as possible in order to ensure good sound quality of the recordings but without creating a sense of intrusion. We used a portable camera with a high quality microphone, which meant that it was sometimes easier to hear what other children said, rather than those we were filming. Recordings from a room with 20 children playing in different areas often contain a great deal of background noise (Flewitt [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref52">14</reflink>]). However, this is also typical of children's communication in general. Another difficulty was that the children's play often involved considerable moving around (Cowan [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref53">12</reflink>]), which made it difficult for us to follow them at their speed, but it also made us aware of the importance of multimodality and of language in motion. As Gillen and Cameron note from their 'A day in a life' project, 'the videos capture aspects of the multimodality of daily events that might otherwise go unnoted' (Gillen and Cameron [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref54">17</reflink>], 29). The videos made it possible to look through selected scenes repeatedly to discover new details involved in fine-tuned processes of alignment, especially by slowing down the speed. Thus, we were able to register the broad variety of semiotic resources used in children's interactions, which would not have been possible if we had had to rely on field notes.</p> <hd id="AN0152395949-6">The site and the children</hd> <p>The centre was located in a village in a rural area where the average socio-economic status is slightly lower than the average in Denmark. The centre recruited almost all children from this and the surrounding villages, which meant that the children had mixed social backgrounds but Danish was the mother tongue of all of them, with a few exceptions. Some of the children's parents were well educated and well established and some of them were single parents with more precarious employment status. Three staff members worked in the room where the observations primarily took place. The four children (two girls and two boys) we followed during their entire days in the centre were selected based on their patterns of interaction; they were neither the most talkative nor the quietest children. The four children also had diverse social backgrounds.</p> <p>When the children arrived in the morning, they played until 9, when there was circle time followed by the morning snack. From about 9.30–11 the children played indoors but could also take part in the activities initiated by the adults at one of the three large tables in the main room or in the arts and craft room. The room was divided into several 'learning zones' separated by bookcases. In one corner was a Lego table, in the middle area a play kitchen area and a dressing up area in the opposite corner. At 11, there was another circle time, followed by lunch until 12. After lunch, the children played outdoors with children from the other rooms until 2, while for the rest of the day they played indoors until the centre closed at 5. As the daily schedule demonstrates, play is the main activity in the centre. It is mostly voluntary for children to participate in adult-directed activities except for those with special needs.</p> <p>On visits prior to the fieldwork, the staff informed us about their approaches to language learning. The children who had performed below average in language tests were labelled 'language children' and regularly a staff member trained in literacy programmes took them to a separate language lab while the rest of the children played in their usual room. The literacy programme consisted of activities such as picture lotto and reading books aloud in a specific way termed 'dialogic reading' (Pettersvold [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref55">33</reflink>]). Within this practice, certain questions about the form and content of the books are repeated each time the books are read, all aiming at increasing the vocabulary and grammar of the children and their awareness of written language. The language lab also had posters with information about high quality talk such as adults using long elaborated sentences and asking open questions to support childreńs elaborate language use. Thus, their approach to language learning reflects the dominant structural understanding of language, which is highly concerned with vocabulary, pronunciation and grammar. Language programmes are targeted at those who perform poorly in language tests and involve adult-directed activities that deviate from the otherwise play-based pedagogy of the centre.</p> <hd id="AN0152395949-7">Findings</hd> <p>Initially, we used a spreadsheet to gain an overview of all the activities each child was involved in. We noted who took part in them, and the form and general nature of the interactions. We used this overview to select situations for more detailed analysis. For the more fine-grained analysis of the multimodal features, we experimented with using the software ELAN to systematically attend to gestures, intonation, gaze, etc. However, we found that even though this supported systematic attention to each feature, the limited analytical points reached in this way did not match the time consumed. The attention to details risked losing sight of possible points when the conventions of the transcriptions were not determined by the purpose of the analysis. In line with Cowan, we also found that ELAN transcriptions are 'both limited in their scope for examining and representing children's placement in space' (Cowan [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref56">12</reflink>], 83). It is always difficult to represent lively multimodal interaction in printed text. We have included screen shots to help the reader imagine the situation, the context, the use of materials and bodily positioning of the children. The faces are blurred even though we have obtained consent from the parents to use the videos for research and dissemination. The children might not want to find pictures of themselves later in life (Gillen and Cameron [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref57">17</reflink>]). In the following, we present an empirical example, taken from one of Sophie's days. The example is selected as it demonstrates various central characteristics of children's peer talk with a specific focus on play that involves movement in space, use of objects in unconventional ways and vocalisations. In the transcription, we include verbal language and the most relevant semiotic resources the children used to collectively develop their play theme and play roles in processes of communicative alignment. The transcriptions are our translations from Danish (with help from a proof-reader) and the names are pseudonyms.</p> <hd id="AN0152395949-8">Aeroplane, babies, taking turns at giving birth, neighbours, kings and princesses</hd> <p>This 24-minute play sequence starts right after the morning snack, where Sophie and Emma were sitting next to each other. Anna, who played with Emma before the morning snack, has walked over to Emma, while Sophie has left the table to wash her hands. The transcription of the long sequence is divided into smaller units (Tables 1, 2 and 3) with our analytical comments in between.</p> <p>Table 1. What are we going to play?.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Who</td><td>Verbal language</td><td>Other communicative interactions</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td><bold>Emma and Anna</bold></td><td /><td><italic>Walk with their arms around each other towards the play kitchen area</italic></td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td><bold>Emma</bold></td><td><italic>What are we going to play?</italic></td><td /></tr><tr><td>3</td><td><bold>Sophie</bold></td><td /><td><italic>Runs over to them and tickles Emma, making tickling sounds</italic></td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td><bold>Emma</bold></td><td><italic>No, I'm going to play with Anna.</italic></td><td /></tr><tr><td>5</td><td><bold>Sophie</bold></td><td /><td><italic>Walks to the kitchen area too</italic></td></tr><tr><td>6 7</td><td><bold>Sophie</bold></td><td><italic>Shall we play an aeroplane game? Aeroplane, aeroplane, aeroplane.</italic></td><td><italic>Half singing</italic></td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td><bold>Anna</bold></td><td><italic>Yes, we can. Then this can be the aeroplane.</italic></td><td><italic>Points towards the floor where they played ferry the day before</italic></td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td><bold>Emma</bold></td><td><italic>And then I can be down here.</italic></td><td><italic>Sits down to the right of the bookcase</italic></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Sophie's tickling of Emma (l. 3) can be seen as an unspecified attempt to re-connect with Emma, whom she has just been sitting next to, and to join Emma and Anna, who with their arms around each other (l. 1) demonstrate that they have already formed a pair. Sophie's suggestion (l. 2) presupposes that she can join them – she suggests <emph>what</emph> they should play, not <emph>if</emph> they should play. Emma responds to this attempt and initially rejects Sophie with reference to her pre-established agreement with Anna (l. 4). However, Sophie just joins Anna and Emma as they walk towards the play kitchen (l. 5) and then Sophie verbally comes up with an idea for a play theme similar to a theme from the previous day (l. 6). The following sing song way of singing 'aeroplane' (l. 6-7) is a sensed way of playing with the word, which has no clear-cut purpose. However, the repeated vocalisations contribute to a positive framing of the suggestion. Thus, the verbal language helps Sophie to gain access, but language use in itself does not create this alignment. Access is to a large degree obtained through her bodily movement indicating that she is part of the group and through vocalisation. The play theme seems to be recognised by the other children, as it resembles a similar play theme from the previous day. It is accepted verbally by Anna, who extends Sophie's idea by pointing to where the aeroplane should be located (l. 8), while Emma's contribution 'and then I can be down here' (l. 9) confirms this acceptance partly in the play frame as she is already entering the aeroplane, which is not built yet (Figure 1).</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. Emma, Sophie and Anna arrange the aeroplane.</p> <p>Table 2. Babies and mothers.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Who</td><td>Verbal language</td><td>Other communicative interaction</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>10</td><td><bold>Emma, Sophie and Anna</bold></td><td /><td><italic>Pull large wooden boxes and small stools in a small circle around a cot to outline the play area</italic></td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td><bold>Anna</bold></td><td /><td><italic>Is outside the designated area, puts a doll under her shirt</italic></td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td><bold>Sophie</bold></td><td /><td><italic>Walks up to Anna</italic></td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td><bold>Sophie</bold></td><td><italic>Is there a baby in there?</italic></td><td /></tr><tr><td>14</td><td><bold>Anna</bold></td><td><italic>Mmm.</italic></td><td /></tr><tr><td>15</td><td><bold>Sophie</bold></td><td><italic>When's it coming out?</italic></td><td /></tr><tr><td>16</td><td><bold>Anna</bold></td><td><italic>In a hundred years.</italic></td><td /></tr><tr><td>17</td><td><bold>Sophie</bold></td><td /><td><italic>Continues moving boxes to mark the aeroplane area</italic></td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td><bold>Emma</bold></td><td /><td><italic>Sits inside the area in the cot</italic></td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td><bold>Anna</bold></td><td /><td><italic>Walks over to Sophie</italic></td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td><bold>Anna</bold></td><td><italic>You asked when my baby's coming out.</italic></td><td /></tr><tr><td>21</td><td><bold>Sophie</bold></td><td><italic>What?</italic></td><td><italic>Continues to move furniture to encircle the aeroplane area</italic></td></tr><tr><td>22 23</td><td><bold>Anna</bold></td><td><italic>Try and listen, it's kicking me. And we played this too, didn't we?</italic></td><td><italic>Holding her hands on her stomach where the baby doll is under her shirt</italic></td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td><bold>Sophie</bold></td><td /><td><italic>Crawls under the stools and sits inside the 'aeroplane' with Emma</italic></td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td><bold>Emma</bold></td><td><italic>Anna, Anna, can't we play that I was your baby?</italic></td><td /></tr><tr><td>26</td><td><bold>Anna</bold></td><td><italic>Yes. Look, there's a new baby.</italic></td><td><italic>Looks at Sophie</italic></td></tr><tr><td>27</td><td><bold>Sophie</bold></td><td><italic>Hello baby. You like me, don't you?</italic></td><td><italic>Caring voice</italic></td></tr><tr><td>28</td><td><bold>Anna</bold></td><td /><td><italic>Makes some aching sounds and sits on a stool in front of Emma</italic></td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td><bold>Emma</bold></td><td><italic>I liked you most, didn't I?</italic></td><td><italic>Pointing at Anna</italic></td></tr><tr><td>30</td><td><bold>Sophie</bold></td><td><italic>Oh no!</italic></td><td><italic>Complaining voice</italic></td></tr><tr><td>31</td><td><bold>Anna</bold></td><td><italic>But my other baby's coming out too.</italic></td><td /></tr><tr><td>32</td><td><bold>Emma</bold></td><td><italic>And I liked you too. Mama.</italic></td><td><italic>Stroking Sophie's arm.</italic></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The collective emergence of the aeroplane theme continues with the joint establishment of the play area through a wordless manipulation of objects (l. 10). It seems self-evident to the children that an aeroplane game involves putting large objects in a circle so it is unnecessary to articulate the common action. Then Anna introduces a new theme – being pregnant – by putting another object, a doll, under her shirt (l. 11). Sophie aligns with Anna's idea by walking up to her (l. 12) and she verbally expresses understanding of Anna's new idea by asking if there is a baby in her stomach (l. 13). After Anna confirms this with a short sound (l. 14), Sophie adds a relevant in-frame verbal response about when the baby will arrive (l. 15). Then Sophie resumes the aeroplane theme by continuing to arrange the furniture (l. 17). Anna then approaches Sophie (l. 19) and encourages her to repeat her former question (l. 20), which can be seen as a more explicit attempt to reintroduce the pregnancy theme. Sophie does not confirm the new theme, which seems to leave Anna uncertain; she then encourages Sophie to notice her stomach followed by an out of frame question: And we played this too, didn't we? (l. 23). Sophie does not reject this directly, but continues to arrange the aeroplane. Then she positions herself next to Emma (l. 24) and Emma introduces the new, but similar theme of being an already born baby by asking Anna (out of frame) if it is ok that she is her baby in the game (l. 25). Thus, Emma adjusts to Anna's wish to be a mother. Anna accepts this and introduces the baby Emma to Sophie (in frame) (l. 26), who aligns in frame with this suggestion by saying hello to the new baby and asking if the baby likes her with a caring voice (l. 27), a contextualising cue that demonstrates the alignment to Emma's idea. Emma responds by suggesting a possible (face-threatening) differentiation in affection between the three play roles (playmates) (l. 29) (Figure 2), which seems to threaten the apparently equal relationship between the three girls. Sophie opposes this (l. 30) and Emma quickly restores their relationship by underlining that she also liked (in the past tense, indicating that it is in the game, not in real life) her and by calling Sophie her mother (l. 32) (whether it is instead of Anna or whether there are two mothers is unclear) and by physically showing affection by stroking Sophie's arm. At the same time, Anna is making birth sounds (l. 28) and explains to her playmates that the baby has been born (l.31) and needs a position in the family. In this sequence, most of the verbal language is used to introduce and negotiate new play themes out of frame accompanied with bodily movements that underline the intentions, and peers confirm or reject these by manipulation of material objects and in-frame remarks.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 2. Emma: I liked you the most. Pointing at Anna.</p> <p>In the next play sequence (which is not transcribed here), Anna takes the baby out from under her shirt, and then suggests that it is Sophie's turn to have a baby and hands the doll to Sophie, who puts it under her shirt. Emma then points out that she was the baby first, and Sophie confirms Emma's baby role by telling the baby repeatedly with a firm mother tone that she must go to bed and lie down. Meanwhile Anna has left the aeroplane and she urges Sofie to join her on the other side of the bookcase. Sophie walks over to Anna at the other side of the bookcase, and shortly after Emma walks over to Anna and Sophie with the cot around her.</p> <p>The aeroplane theme seems to be replaced by the joint engagement in the family theme. The development of the play theme seems to create confusion about play roles but they are confirmed by the use of vocalisations and bodily movements in which they adjust to each other's wishes. When Anna and Sophie develop the family theme at the other side of the bookcase, Emma joins them, but still uses the cot to indicate her position as another baby in the family.</p> <p>Table 3. Taking turns at giving birth and taking care of other children.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Who</td><td>Verbal language</td><td>Other communicative interaction</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>46</td><td><bold>Sophie</bold></td><td><italic>This one needs a prick.</italic></td><td><italic>Pointing at baby Emma</italic></td></tr><tr><td>47</td><td><bold>Anna</bold></td><td><italic>Prick!</italic></td><td><italic>Takes a sausage tweezer and injects baby Emma</italic></td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td><bold>Emma</bold></td><td /><td><italic>Whines from being pricked</italic></td></tr><tr><td>49</td><td><bold>Sophie</bold></td><td><italic>And now we shot the baby in my tummy.</italic></td><td><italic>Hand on her stomach</italic></td></tr><tr><td>50</td><td><bold>Anna</bold></td><td><italic>And you lie down here.</italic></td><td><italic>Points to the floor next to her</italic></td></tr><tr><td>51</td><td><bold>Sophie</bold></td><td><italic>Yes, we'll do it here.</italic></td><td><italic>She lies down and points at her stomach</italic></td></tr><tr><td>52</td><td><bold>Anna</bold></td><td><italic>Yes, and I should pull it out. And now you let go.</italic></td><td /></tr><tr><td>53</td><td><bold>Sophie</bold></td><td /><td><italic>Takes her arm away from her stomach</italic></td></tr><tr><td>54</td><td><bold>Anna</bold></td><td /><td><italic>Starts pulling the baby out with the sausage tweezer</italic></td></tr><tr><td>55</td><td><bold>Emma</bold></td><td><italic>And I was eating here.</italic></td><td><italic>Takes the bottom piece of the cot and uses it as a tray</italic></td></tr><tr><td>56</td><td><bold>Anna</bold></td><td /><td><italic>Gets the doll out</italic></td></tr><tr><td>57</td><td><bold>Sophie</bold></td><td><italic>My baby, my baby – oh no – you mustn't show your bum.</italic></td><td><italic>The doll's trousers have come off on the way out</italic></td></tr><tr><td>58</td><td><bold>Emma, Sophie and Anna</bold></td><td /><td><italic>Laugh</italic></td></tr><tr><td>59</td><td><bold>Anna</bold></td><td><italic>And now it's my turn to have it in my tummy. And you have to do this with this one.</italic></td><td><italic>Shows her the sausage tweezer</italic></td></tr><tr><td>60</td><td><bold>Emma</bold></td><td /><td><italic>Walks back to the aeroplane</italic></td></tr><tr><td>61</td><td><bold>Emma</bold></td><td><italic>Mama, I want food.</italic></td><td /></tr><tr><td>62</td><td><bold>Anna</bold></td><td /><td><italic>Walks over to Emma and gives her food</italic></td></tr><tr><td>63</td><td><bold>Sophie</bold></td><td><italic>And I was your neighbour.</italic></td><td><italic>Looking at them over the bookcase</italic></td></tr><tr><td>64</td><td><bold>Anna</bold></td><td /><td><italic>Returns to help Sophie give birth</italic></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Sophie manages to integrate Emma in the game on the other side of the bookcase by telling Anna that her baby needs an injection (l. 46), which Anna quickly aligns with by finding a sausage tweezer and using it as a needle to give baby Emma an injection (l. 47) accompanied by vocalisations from both of them (l. 47-48). Then Sophie resumes the pregnancy theme by suggesting that the baby inside her stomach also needs an injection (l. 49) (Figure 3). Anna quickly aligns and adds a new element to the giving birth game by suggesting that Sophie should lie dawn (l. 50) and then turning the sausage tweezer into forceps used for delivery (l. 54) and instructing Sophie on how she must position her body (l. 52), which Sophie quickly aligns with (l. 51 and 53). Sophie then uses the baby's loss of trousers as a humoristic element (l. 57), which becomes a joint element of laughter for all three girls (l. 58). Meanwhile Emma turns their attention to the other baby by telling them that she is eating inside the cot (l. 55) and turning the bottom piece into a tray. When Anna suggests that she and Sophie take turns at giving birth (l. 59), Emma leaves them and goes back to the other side of the bookcase (l. 60). From here, she calls for more food (l. 61), and Anna leaves Sophie to adjust to Emma's request (l. 62). Then Sophie quickly invents a new role as a neighbour (l. 63), which is suitable to the context with a divided play area (Figure 4). Anna returns to Sophie to help her to give birth (l. 64), thus integrating the different play themes by moving back and forth between the two sides of the bookcase after this.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 3. Sophie wants the baby in her stomach injected, while Emma is inside the cot.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 4. Anna gives baby Emma food and Sophie suggests she is the neighbour.</p> <p>They continue taking turns at giving birth using one side of the bookcase as a delivery room, and giving baby Emma food on the other side in between each birth. Each birth includes more objects in the room, such as blankets and pillows. For the fourth birth, Sophie notices a cape for a king in the dressing up area and suggests they play kings. They ask Emma if she will be the father/king. She agrees and comes over to the other girls. They negotiate the roles they will play, including pregnant cats, a frog, a princess and Superman. Anna and Emma end up being ballet princesses and they go out in the middle of the room to make pirouettes, while Sophie gets the Superman costume on, which takes a lot of time. Sophie meets her friend Andrew and they end up playing together in the dressing up area, while Anna and Emma dance.</p> <p>The analysis of this example shows how play themes are often collectively developed by the verbal introduction of new activities or roles, which starts negotiations about how the new elements can be integrated in a common and improvised play script. Acceptance and development of play themes often take place using objects, intonation, vocalisation and repetition of words. Verbal language is mainly used to introduce new themes but also to express more abstract elements like differences in affection between the characters, which also increases the likelihood of conflicts. Through ongoing adaptation to each other, play with peers provides ample opportunities for developing pragmatic competences in which the participants express understanding of the others' intentions, integrate input from others in their next moves and use verbal and multimodal strategies to convince their interlocutors and prevent possible breakdowns. These pragmatic competences, which are essential in both childreńs and adults' lives, are not (and cannot be) measured in language tests based on a structural understanding of language, which is widespread in ECEC. Thus, children's mutual interactional language use is not seen as a main source for their language learning.</p> <hd id="AN0152395949-9">Discussion</hd> <p>If language is understood as a structural phenomenon and thus as a question of acquiring vocabulary and language form, children's interactional language use may not be seen as an important site for language learning. On the other hand, if language is understood as a social and contextual phenomenon and thus linguistic and social development as closely connected, our analysis indicates that children's play is a key foundation for language learning.</p> <p>The scientific understanding of language in the word-gap discourse objectifies language, which may shift research interest and language pedagogy away from children's actual everyday language use. In contrast, a child and a whole day perspective are central for the implications of our study. Language use and language development must be seen as an integral part of children's lives in ECEC and not as primarily taking place in adult-directed activities separated from other children. The whole day method enabled a view of language as an assemblage and the exploration of instances of language use that make sense for children. Instead of evaluating childreńs linguistic competences as a matter of vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation, a more fruitful way seems to be to consider the social and linguistic environment. New materialist perspectives on language as multimodal and multisensory practices deeply entangled with space, place and things may allow for consideration of the social, spatial and embodied dimensions of language learning (Pennycook [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref58">32</reflink>], 55). This leads to a focus on 'participation in dynamic, multisensory, collective events' in which 'talking as a bodily, as well as a linguistic act feels comfortable, easy and right' (Hackett, MacLure, and McMahon [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref59">19</reflink>], 14).</p> <p>A turn towards such an understanding of children's language allows us to view children's actual language use as resourceful, creative and co-constructive rather than applying a deficit perspective to individual children's linguistic competences. Language use must be studied from a child and everyday perspective to avoid predefined ideas about what constitutes a good language-learning environment. Play with peers provides many opportunities to use and develop verbal and multimodal pragmatic competences in situations that are important for children to participate in. Play with peers confronts children with linguistic challenges that are important for them to solve to avoid breakdowns and continue their common endeavours. Children have their own ways of making meaning, which do not always resemble adult ideas about correct and successful language use. In contrast to literacy programmes in the language lab, language use in play has a more unpredictable character as play themes are developed in processes of collective emergence.</p> <p>Our understanding and use of the concept of language might challenge a traditional conceptual division between language and communication. Some researchers (e.g. Bagga-Gupta [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref60">5</reflink>]) argue for using the concept of human communication in relation to research in situated talk and meaning-making semantic processes. This concept is preferred in order to distinguish this research from analysis of language as a static and structural entity. We would argue against this conceptual distinction between language and (human) communication because it might support a structurally inspired understanding of language as a system that children have to acquire, and communication as the use of this system. Because language, both politically and pedagogically, is regarded as especially important in ECEC, we find it highly relevant to argue for a broadening of the conceptual understanding of language instead of using another term.</p> <p>To enhance the ontological understanding of language and to broaden our scientific insight into the complexity of children's everyday language use in ECEC an assemblage and linguistic ethnographic approach seem promising.</p> <hd id="AN0152395949-10">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We would like to thank the early childhood centre, the staff and the children for sharing their daily practices with us.</p> <hd id="AN0152395949-11">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0152395949-12"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref9" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adair, Jennifer Keys, Kiyomi Sanchez-Suzuk Colegrove, and Molly E. McManus. 2017. " How the Word Gap Argument Negatively Impacts Young Children of Latinx Immigrants' Conceptualizations of Learning." Harvard Educational Review 87 (3): 309 – 334. Cambridge: Harvard.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref8" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ahrenkiel, Annegrethe, and Lars Holm. 2020. " Documentation of Children's Language Development." In Documentation in Institutional Contexts of Early Childhood: Normalisation, Participation and Professionalism, edited by Maarit Alasuutari, Helga Kelle, and Helen Knauf, 41 – 58. Wiesbaden : Springer Vieweg. in Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref41" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ahrenkiel, Annegrethe, and Kim Rasmussen. 2015. " "Børns relationer og venskaber : Pædagogers opgave og ansvar?" [Children's Relations and Friendships: The Task and Responsibility of Educators?" ]. Dansk Pædagogisk Tidsskrift 2015 (3): 82 – 91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref40" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Andersen, Peter, and Jan Kampmann. 1996. Børns legekultur. [Children's Play Culture]. Copenhagen : Munksgaard/Rosinante.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref60" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bagga-Gupta, Sangeeta. 2020. " Learning Languaging Matters. Contributions to a Turn-on-Turn Reflexivity." In Reconceptualizing Connections Between Language, Literacy and Learning. Bagga-Gupta, Sangeeta, Anne Golden, Lars Holm, Helle Pia Laursen, Anne Pitkänen-Huhta, 103 – 124. Cham : Springer International Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref27" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bloome, David, and Judith Green. 2015. " The Social and Linguistic Turns in Studying Language and Literacy." In The Routledge Handbook of Literacy Studies, edited by Jennifer Rowsell, and Kate Pahl. Vol. 2, 19 – 34. Beaverton : Ringgold Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref26" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, and Catherine E Snow. 2004. " Introduction: The Potential of Peer Talk." Discourse Studies 6 (3): 291 – 306. doi: 10.1177/1461445604044290.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref4" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Blum, Susan D. 2015. "' Wordism': Is There a Teacher in the House? " Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 25 (1): 74.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref7" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cook-Gumperz, Jenny. 1986. " Caught in a Web of Words : Some Considerations on Language Socialization and Language Acquisition." In Children's Worlds and Children's Language, edited by Jenny Cook-Gumperz, William A Corsaro, and Jürgen Streeck, 37 – 64. Berlin : M. de Gruyter.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook, Guy. 2000. Language Play, Language Learning. Oxford Applied Linguistics. Oxford : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corsaro, William A. 2012. " Interpretive Reproduction in Children's Play." American Journal of Play 4 (4): 488 – 504.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cowan, Kate. 2020. " Tracing the Ephemeral: Mapping Young Children's Running Games." Designs for Learning 12 (1): Ubiquity Press Ltd, 2020: 81 – 93. doi: 10.16993/dfl.90.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ehrlich, Sara Zadunaisky, and Shoshana Blum-Kulka. 2014. " Now I Said That Danny Becomes Danny Again': A Multifaceted View of Kindergarten Childreńs Peer Argumentative Discourse." In Children's Peer Talk : Learning from Each Other, edited by Asta Cekaite, Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Vibeke Grover, and Eva Teubal, 23 – 41. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139084536.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flewitt, Rosie. 2006. " Using Video to Investigate Preschool Classroom Interaction: Education Research Assumptions and Methodological Practices." Visual Communication 5 (1): 25 – 50. doi: 10.1177/1470357206060917.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flewitt, Rosie. 2013. " Chapter 17: Multimodal Perspectives on Early Childhood Literacies." In The SAGE Handbook of Early Childhood Literacy, edited by Joanne Larson, and Jackie Marsh, 2nd ed., 295 – 310. London : SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: 10.4135/9781446247518.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frønes, Ivar. 1995. Among Peers: On the Meaning of Peers in the Process of Socialization. Oslo : Scandinavian University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gillen, Julia, and Catherine Ann Cameron. 2010. International Perspectives on Early Childhood Research: A Day in the Life. London : Palgrave Macmillan UK.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie H Goodwin. 2004. " Participation." In A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, edited by Alessandro Duranti, 222 – 244. Blackwell Companions to Anthropology; 1. Malden : Mass: Blackwell Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hackett, Abigail, Maggie MacLure, and Sarah McMahon. 2020. " Reconceptualising Early Language Development: Matter, Sensation and the More-Than-Human." Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, June. Routledge, 1 – 17. doi: 10.1080/01596306.2020.1767350.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hymes, Dell. 1974. Foundations in Sociolinguistics, an Ethnographic Approach. edited by Dell Hymes. Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kampmann, Jan, Kim Rasmussen, and Hanne Warming. 2017. Interview med børn. [Interviews with Children.]. Copenhagen : Hans Reitzel.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kyratzis, Amy. 2004. " Talk and Interaction Among Children and the Co-Construction of Peer Groups and Peer Culture." Annual Review of Anthropology 33 (1): 625 – 649. doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.144008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kyratzis, Amy, and Sarah Jean Johnson. 2017. " Multimodal and Multilingual Resources in Children's Framing of Situated Learning Activities: An Introduction." Linguistics and Education 41 : 1 – 6. doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2017.07.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacRae, Christina. 2020. " Tactful Hands and Vibrant Mattering in the Sand Tray." Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 20 (1): SAGE Publications: 90 – 110. doi: 10.1177/1468798420901858.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mainz, Pernille, and Louise Halliday Valeur. 2016. ""En stor gruppe børn er to år bagud, når de starter i skole." [Many Children are Two Years Behind When They Start School]." Politiken, August 23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maybin, Janet, and Karin Tusting. 2011. " Linguistic Ethnography." In The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics, edited by James Simpson, 515 – 528. London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Monaco, Camilla, and Clotide Pontecorvo. 2014. " Explanatory Discourse and Historical Reasoning in Children's Talk: An Experience of Small Group Activity." In Children's Peer Talk : Learning from Each Other, edited by Asta Cekaite, Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Vibeke Grøver, and Eva Teubal, 87 – 106. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nicolopoulou, Ageliki, Carolyn Brockmeyer Cates, Aline de Sá Barbosa, and Hande Ilgaz. 2014. " Narrative Performance, Peer Group Culture, and Narrative Development in a Preschool Classroom." In Children's Peer Talk : Learning from Each Other, edited by Asta Cekaite, Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Vibeke Grøver, and Eva Teubal, 42 – 62. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paasch, Bettina S., and Pirkko Raudaskoski. 2018. " "Multimodal Interaktionsanalyse." [Multimodal Interaction Analysis]." In Videoanalyse Af Social Interaktion, [Videoanalysis of Social Interaction], edited by Jacob Davidsen, and Malene Kjær, 1st ed., 151 – 184. Copenhagen : Samfundslitteratur.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papen, Uta. 2018. " Hymns, Prayers and Bible Stories: The Role of Religious Literacy Practices in Children's Literacy Learning." Ethnography and Education 13 (1): Taylor & Francis: 119 – 134. doi: 10.1080/17457823.2016.1277773.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pennycook, Alastair. 2010. Language as a Local Practice. 1st ed. London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pennycook, Alastair. 2018. Posthumanist Applied Linguistics. London, [England] : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pettersvold, Mari. 2016. " "Demokrati i barnehagen med programmer på arbeid. En analyse og kritisk diskusjon av metoden dialogisk lesing" [Democracy in Kindergartens Using Programmes. An Analysis and Critical Discussion of the Method of Dialogic Reading)." Dansk Pædagogisk Tidsskrift 2016 (3): 24 – 31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pink, Sarah, and Jennie Morgan. 2013. " Short-Term Ethnography: Intense Routes to Knowing: Short-Term Ethnography." Symbolic Interaction 36 (3): 351 – 361. doi: 10.1002/symb.66.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sawyer, R Keith. 1997. Pretend Play as Improvisation: Conversation in the Preschool Classroom. Mahwah, N.J. : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schieffelin, Bambi B, and Elinor Ochs. 1986a. " Language Socialization." edited by Bambi Schieffelin. Annual Review of Anthropology 15 : 163 – 191.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schieffelin, Bambi B, and Elinor Ochs. 1986b. Language Socialization Across Cultures. edited by Bambi B Schieffelin and Elinor Ochs. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tryggedsson, Susanne. 2007. "Venskab i Dagtilbud." [Friendship in Day Care]. Odense : Dansk pædagogisk forum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wagner, Johannes. 2018. " Multilingual and Multimodal Interactions." Applied Linguistics 39 (1): Oxford: Oxford University Press: 99 – 107. doi: 10.1093/applin/amx058.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Warming, Hanne. 2011. " Getting under Their Skins? Accessing Young Children's Perspectives through Ethnographic Fieldwork." Childhood 18 (1): London, England: SAGE Publications: 39 – 53. doi: 10.1177/0907568210364666.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ytterhus, Borgunn. 2003. Socialt samvær mellem børn. Inklusion og eksklusion i børnehaven. [Social Interaction Among Children. Inclusion and Exclusion in the Kindergarten]. Copenhagen : Hans Reitzel.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Annegrethe Ahrenkiel; Lars Holm and Laura Østergaard Eilenberg</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref55"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1309165
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Children's Language Use in ECEC in a Child Perspective
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ahrenkiel%2C+Annegrethe%22">Ahrenkiel, Annegrethe</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Holm%2C+Lars%22">Holm, Lars</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Eilenberg%2C+Laura+Østergaard%22">Eilenberg, Laura Østergaard</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Ethnography+and+Education%22"><i>Ethnography and Education</i></searchLink>. 2021 16(4):420-436.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethnography%22">Ethnography</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Care+Centers%22">Child Care Centers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Usage%22">Language Usage</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Play%22">Play</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Video+Technology%22">Video Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interaction+Process+Analysis%22">Interaction Process Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Acquisition%22">Language Acquisition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Rural+Areas%22">Rural Areas</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocabulary+Development%22">Vocabulary Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Childrens+Attitudes%22">Childrens Attitudes</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Denmark%22">Denmark</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/17457823.2021.1943699
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1745-7823
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: With inspiration from research in linguistic ethnography and children's perspectives, this article examines children's language use in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in a child perspective. The article is based on ethnographic fieldwork including video recordings from four children's entire days in a Danish day care centre. A multimodal analysis of an extended play sequence demonstrates how children's interactional language use is a creative and collective process that provides multiple opportunities to use and develop language practices, where children constantly align with each other to continue their common endeavours. The findings point to a need for broadening the conceptual understanding of language and of children's language learning as an integral part of children's everyday life in ECEC.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1309165
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1309165
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/17457823.2021.1943699
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 420
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Ethnography
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Care Centers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Usage
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Childhood Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Play
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Video Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interaction Process Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Acquisition
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Rural Areas
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocabulary Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Childrens Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Denmark
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Children's Language Use in ECEC in a Child Perspective
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ahrenkiel, Annegrethe
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Holm, Lars
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Eilenberg, Laura Østergaard
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1745-7823
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 16
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Ethnography and Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1