Suzanne Fagel (Leiden)
Thursday, May 17th
The Coach House, Green College – 6201 Cecil Green Park Road
Patrick Duffley (Laval)
Saturday, May 19th
Buchanan A201
The most recent book-length study of idiomatic creativity (Langlotz 2006) views this
phenomenon as a form of intelligent human behaviour based on general cognitive
principles which allows speakers to “manipulate an idiom as a cognitive micro-model – a
mental network that can be evoked to organise and communicate the abstract conceptual
relationships in a target conceptualisation figuratively” (pp. 289-290). Based on Geerarts’
(1995) prismatic model of idiomatic meaning, Langlotz shows how in many cases the
scene evoked by the literal meaning of the idiom is not deactivated or absent, but works
as “metaphorical standard of comparison in relation to which the idiomatic meaning is
itself concretised” (p. 108). However Langlotz claims that in order for an idiom to be
open to creative variation, the association between the literal and idiomatic scenes must
be motivated and analyzable, so that the idiom is isomorphic and cognitively transparent
to some degree. The goal of this paper will be to show that cognitive isomorphism and
transparency are not necessary conditions for the variability of an idiomatic expression.
The classic example of the non-transparent idiom, the expression to kick the bucket, will
be demonstrated to manifest all of Langlotz’s basic forms of idiom variation, viz.
constructional adaptation, literal-scene manipulation, topic indication and topic-related
literal-scene manipulation, in addition to other creative variations introduced by ordinary
speakers which derive from the poetic function of language. This suggests that as long as
an idiom’s literal scene remains analyzable it represents a cognitive reality to which
speakers can apply their intelligence and imagination in a creative fashion.
Geerarts, Dirk. 1995. Specialization and reinterpretation in idioms. In M. Everaert, E. van
der Linden, A. Schenk and R. Schreuder (eds.). Idioms: structural and psychological
perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 57-73.
Langlotz, Andreas. 2006. Idiomatic creativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Laura M. Morett, Raymond W. Gibbs, & Brian MacWhinney (UCSC)
What is the role of gesture in second language (L2) acquisition? There is evidence that L2
learners use iconic (i.e., representative) gestures to convey their intended meaning when they are unable to express it effectively in the target language (McCafferty, 2002; Mori & Hayashi, 2006). Moreover, research has revealed that iconic gesture can facilitate L2 word learning (Kelly, McDevitt, & Esch, 2009), particularly when it is enacted (Tellier, 2008). The objectives of the current study were to determine (1) whether L2 learners use gesture effectively to facilitate communication in the target language, and (2) whether L2 learners’ gestures promote acquisition and retention of the target language beyond the immediate communicative context.
In this study, pairs of English-speaking participants (n=30; age: M=21, SD=4.72) unfamiliar with Hungarian completed a novel word teaching-and-learning task. In order to examine whether participants used gesture effectively to communicate, pairs were randomly assigned to either the visible condition, in which they sat across a table from one another without occlusion, or the invisible condition, in which an opaque occluder was placed between them. In each learning trial, one member of each pair (the teacher) learned one of twenty Hungarian words via a computer with headphones, and subsequently taught the word to their partner (the learner). During the learning task, participants were video recorded using a hidden camera; iconic gestures were later identified and counted using these recordings. After the learning task, participants completed a recall test in which they produced the English translation of each Hungarian word that they had learned in order to determine whether gestures produced during the learning task affected L2 word recall.
Based on the results of the research discussed above, it was predicted that participants in the visible condition would produce more iconic gestures than participants in the invisible condition. Accordingly, an independent samples t test revealed that participants produced more iconic gestures when they were visible to one another (M=22.70; SD=14.53) than when their view of each other was occluded (M=10.00; SD=12.60), t(29)=2.20, p=.04, d=.93. Moreover, based on the results of the research discussed above, it was predicted that the number of gestures that participants produced during the learning task would predict their word recall accuracy after the task. Indeed, a regression analysis revealed a trend for participants’ gestures to predict their word recall, b=.116, t(59)=1.72, p=.09. However, another regression analysis revealed that teachers’ gestures failed to predict learners’ word recall, b= -.28, t(29)=1.04, p=.31.
The results of the current study demonstrate that L2 learners use gestures appropriately to communicate with interlocutors in the target language. The observation that L2 learners produced more iconic gestures when their interlocutors were visible than when they were invisible indicates that L2 learners are aware of the communicative properties of these gestures: namely, that they convey meaning visually via iconicity (i.e., representativeness). Moreover, the results provide some evidence that L2 learners’ enactment—but not mere viewing—of iconic gestures in conversational settings promotes L2 acquisition more broadly.
Laura M. Morett (UCSC)
Saturday, May 19th
Buchanan A hallway on the 2nd floor
Research has demonstrated that gesture enactment (Asher & Price, 1967; Kelly, McDevitt, & Esch, 2009; Tellier, 2008) and mental imagery (Atkinson & Raugh, 1975; Ellis & Beaton, 1993) facilitate learning of novel second language words. These results suggest that mental imagery and embodied action contribute to successful word learning in spoken second languages. To date, however, no research has investigated whether enactment or mental imagery are effective methods for learning vocabulary in signed second languages, such as American Sign Language (ASL). The objective of this study was to examine the effects of mental imagery (MI) and embodied action (EA) on the acquisition of ASL signs, thus filling this lacuna. Twenty-six participants (average age: 19.16; 8 males) unfamiliar with ASL were recruited from the University of Pittsburgh. In learning trials, participants were presented with a silent video of a fluent ASL signer demonstrating a sign, and then were presented with the English translation of the sign as text and synthesized speech. Participants then performed the action associated with one of four conditions before proceeding to the next learning trial. In the enactment condition (MI+EA), participants enacted signs with their own hands; in the mental imagery condition (MI), participants envisioned the meanings of signs in their mind’s eye; in the elicited motion condition (EA), participants moved their hands in an X-shaped pattern three times; and in the passive comprehension condition (Ø), participants were presented with signs and their English translations one additional time. A total of 20 unique ASL signs (see Table 1) were learned via these conditions in 3 learning blocks comprising 20 trials each. Sign recollection was measured 5 minutes and 1 week after learning via a recall task in which participants were presented with English translations as text and speech and were instructed to produce the corresponding ASL signs.
On the basis of extant research showing that gesture enactment facilitates word learning in spoken languages, it was predicted that signs learned via the enactment condition would be recollected best. Accordingly, in the recall task, participants correctly produced more signs learned via enactment than via imagery (p=.04), motion (p=.06), and comprehension
(p=.05), Fpp(3,57)=7.16, p < .001, ηp
2 = .29; Fsign(3,45)=14.07, p<.001, ηp
2=.48. Participants also
produced more signs correctly after 5 minutes than after 1 week, Fpp(1,19)=10.99, p=.004,
ηp
2=.38; Fsign(1,15)=18.16, p=.001, ηp
2=.55.
Accuracy of sign recall under each condition remained consistent at both test intervals (Fpp>1; Fsign>1; see Figure 1). Taken together, these results confirm that enactment resulted in better recall of ASL signs than mental imagery, elicited motion, or passive sign comprehension at both 5 minute and 1 week intervals. As such, they indicate that both mental imagery and embodied action contribute to effective acquisition of vocabulary in signed languages. Together with similar findings from research on spoken languages, the results of this study indicate that manual enactment facilitates second language lexical acquisition.
Fey Parrill (Case), Benjamin Bergen (UCSD), & Patricia Lichtenstein (UC, Merced)
Saturday, May 19th
Buchanan B213
Grammatical aspect is a pervasive linguistic device that, according to linguistic analyses,
allows speakers to encode different ways of construing events. For instance, the
progressive (I am writing a book) is thought to reflect increased focus on the internal
details of an event, as contrasted with the perfect (I have written a book). However, there
is to date no experimental evidence that speakers describing events using progressive
versus perfect aspect are in fact thinking about the same events differently. We used cospeech
gesture as a means to investigate what speakers’ event representations are like
when they produce progressive versus non-progressive utterances. We found that
progressive event descriptions were accompanied by longer-lasting and more complex
gestures, but only when participants described events originally presented to them in the
progressive. This evidence suggests that people are actually construing events differently
when they use different grammatical aspects, but that how they originally encoded the
events plays a role as well.
Elena Nicoladis (Alberta), Paula Marentette (Alberta), and Samuel Navarro (UBC)
Friday, May 18th
Buchanan A201
Telling a story orally often involves using visual-spatial imagery to
create/remember the events in a story (Rubin, 1995). Oral story-tellers often use a variety
of verbal and non-verbal means to convey their stories effectively, such as prosody and
co-speech gestures (Scheub, 1977). Co-speech gestures may serve a variety of functions
in adults’ story-telling, including helping speakers access language for speaking (Krauss,
Chen, & Gottesman, 2001), particularly with concepts that are difficult (Kita, 2000). One
study showed a strong link between the rate of co-speech gestures and the use of imagery
(as measured by how long a story they chose to tell) in adults’ oral narratives (Smithson,
2010).
Children’s linguistic means for telling stories improves dramatically in terms of
length, coherence, and complexity between the ages of 4 and 10 years (e.g., Berman &
Slobin, 1994). Children’s use of imagery also changes over that age span, with memory
capacity of imagery increasing and becoming more dynamic (Vecchi, Phillips, &
Cornoldi, 2001). The primary purpose of the present study was to test several possible
predictors of children’s co-speech gesture use in an oral narrative context. Children might
become increasingly reliant on gestures as a strategy or as the complexity of their
narratives increases. If so, either age and/or narrative complexity would be related to their
gesture rate. Alternatively, they might use gestures more frequently as they rely more on
imagery in remembering and creating the events to recount. If so, like adults, their story
length would be related to their gesture use. A secondary purpose of this study was to test
for possible cultural or linguistic differences in gesture rate. Anecdotally, speakers of
Romance languages might gesture more than English speakers.
In this study we tested the strength of three predictors of children’s gesture use in
a narrative context: age, narrative complexity (discourse connectors), and use of imagery
(story length). French-, Spanish-, and English-speaking children between 4 and 10 years
of age participated in this study. The French-speaking children lived in Quebec, the
Spanish-speaking children in Chile, and the English-speaking children in Alberta. The
inclusion of these three groups allows us to test for the generalizability of our results and
for cross-linguistic differences in the rates of gesture use. All the children watched a Pink
Panther cartoon and told the story. The results showed that the length of the story (in
word tokens) was a significant predictor of children’s gesture rate while language group,
age, and discourse connectors were not. There were no differences between language
groups in their rate of gestures.
These results suggest that within this age range, children’s gesture frequency is
primarily linked to activation of imagery, rather than narrative complexity or age. That is,
children’s story-telling, like adults’ story-telling, involves activating mental images to
remember/create the events in the story. We argue that as children’s story-telling abilities
develop, they learn both verbal and non-verbal means to convey an interesting story
(Colletta, 2009).
References
Berman, R. A. & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A
crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Colletta, J.-M. (2009). Comparative analysis of children’s narratives at different
ages: A multimodal approach. Gesture, 9, 61-96.
Kita, S. (2000). How representational gestures help speaking. In D. McNeill (Ed.),
Language and gesture (pp. 162-185). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krauss, R. M., Chen, Y., & Gottesman, R. F. (2001). Lexical gestures and lexical
access: A process model. In D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and gesture (pp. 261-283).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rubin, D. C. (1995). Memory in oral traditions: The cognitive psychology of epic,
ballads, and counting-out rhymes. New York: OUP.
Scheub, H. (1977). Body and image in oral narrative performance. New Literary
History, 8, 345-367.
Smithson, L. (2010). Telling Tales: Do working memory, gesture production, and
bilingualism predict individual differences in narrative length? Unpublished paper.
University of Alberta.
Vecchi, T., Phillips, L. H., & Cornoldi, C. (2001). Individual differences in visuospatial
working memory. In M. Denis, C. Cornoldi, M. de Vega, & J. Engelkamp (Eds.),
Imagery, language and visuo-spatial thinking (pp. 29-58). East Sussex, UK: Psychology
Press.
Chloe Gonseth, Anne Vilain, & Coriandre Vilain ( GIPSA-Lab, Speech & Cognition Department, Grenoble University)
Friday, May 18th
Buchanan B215
Deixis is a communicative process about showing and sharing information. Its specificity
is that it involves both the vocal and the gestural modalities, being then a perfect case of
speech/gesture interaction. The particular relationship between speech and gesture has been
demonstrated many a time, from phylogenetic [1, 2] to ontogenetic perspective [3, 4], not to
mention neurophysiological data [5, 6]. Furthermore, experimental studies reveal that these
two systems interact with a specific temporal synchronization [7].
The aim of this work is to experimentally study the spatial features of deictic pointing,
especially the way it encodes distance information. The distance of a designated object is
indeed a spatial feature that we believe can be encoded both through vocal and gestural
modalities. In a previous study [8], we investigated the articulatory and acoustic correlates of
distance in vocal pointing. Our first results showed that the distance of the target influenced
both acoustical values (first formant) and articulatory gestures (lip opening). The present
paper aims at characterizing the kinematic properties of distance encoding in manual pointing:
does manual pointing also carry distance information and thus vary with the target distance?
This hypothesis has been tested with the following experimental situation. Participants were
seated in a soundproof room, in front of three light-emitting diodes (LEDs). LEDs were
placed at 55cm (peri-personal space), 140cm (extra-personal close space), and 425cm (extrapersonal far space). The two LEDs out of reach of the hand were aligned with respect to the subject’s eyes, so that the angle of the arm can not be used to disambiguate which target was pointed at. Participants were required to name and simultaneously to point at the turned-on LED using an index finger pointing. We recorded index finger movements with the motion
capture system Optotrak-3020, which allowed us to measure the duration (s) and amplitude
(mm) of the pointing gesture, as well as its stroke speed (mm/s). A repeated-measures
analysis of variance was conducted on 18 participants, with target distance as a fixed-factor.
For each measurement, the median value was used for the statistical analysis, with a
significance level fixed at p<0.05. The results show that target distance has a significant
effect on the duration, amplitude, and stroke speed of the manual pointing. Participants
perform longer (F(2, 34)=34.9, p<0.05), wider (F(2, 34)=83.7, p<0.05), and faster (F(2,
34)=51.43, p<0.05) manual pointings to designate a distant target (see Figures 1, 2 & 3). Posthoc analyses on each measurement show significant differences for each distance in pairs.
Our results attest that, in a communicative situation, people convey spatial information
about the referent position. To designate a distant referent, they use not only a reinforced
vocal pointing (i.e. higher first formant values and larger lip opening values), but also a
specific manual pointing. Considering these findings could improve the modelling of
conversational agents able to communicate with humans in the most natural way.
(See attached PDF below for the figures).
References
[1] Arbib, M.A. (2005). From Monkey-like Action Recognition to Human Language: An
Evolutionary Framework for Neurolinguistics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28: 105-167.
[2] Leavens, D.A., Hopkins, W.D., & Bard, K.A. (2005). Understanding the point of
chimpanzee pointing: Epigenesis and ecological validity. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 14: 185-189.
[3] Volterra, V., Caselli, M.C., Capirci, O., & Pizzuto, E. (2005). Gesture and the
emergence and development of language. In M. Tomasello, D. Slobin, Beyond Nature-
Nurture. Essays in Honor of Elisabeth Bates. N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3-40.
[4] Özçalışkan, S. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Gesture is at the cutting edge of early
language development. Cognition, 96(3): 101-113.
[5] Hickok, G., Bellugi, U., & Klima, E.S. (1998). The neural organization of language:
Evidence from sign language aphasia. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2: 129-136.
[6] Loevenbruck, H., Baciu, M., Segebarth, C., & Abry, C. (2005). The left inferior frontal
gyrus under focus: an fMRI study of the production of deixis via syntactic extraction and
prosodic focus. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 18: 237-258.
[7] Levelt, W.J.M., Richardson, Graham, & La Heij, Wido (1985). Pointing and voicing in
deictic expressions. Journal of Memory and Language, 24: 133-164.
[8] Gonseth, C., Vilain, A., Vilain, C. (2012). Deictic Pointing: How do Speech and
Gesture Cooperate to Encode Distance Information? Submitted.
Download PDF: Distance Encoding in Kinematic Properties of Manual Pointing
Carla Montez Fernandes (Universidade Nova de Lisboa – FCSH – CLUNL)
e-mail: carla.fernandes@fcsh.unl.pt
Saturday, May 19th
Buchanan B215
This paper is framed by recent studies on Multimodal Corpora (Fernandes, C. &
Jürgens, S. 2010, Kipp, M. et. al. 2009, a.o.) and will specifically focus on the
analysis of original video material filmed by this paper’s author during
rehearsals of contemporary choreographer Rui Horta, namely for his pieces
SetUp (2005, CCB Lisbon), Lágrimas de Saladino (2010, CCB Lisbon) and
Local Geographic (2010, CCB Lisbon). It focuses essentially on dance
choreography processes, multimodal metaphors, emotions and the design and
perception of performing spaces.
We will take into account the relations between speech, body movements,
related emotions and the interaction spaces the dance performers create,
maintain, modify or undo, as well as the communicative function of those
spaces.
A main characteristic of contemporary dance is to explore how emotional
experiences can be expressed in body movements. Rui Horta is one of the
founders of the artistic movement “Nova Dança Portuguesa” and his
choreographic language is generally considered as belonging to the broad
theatrical-dance genre.
Indeed, the analysis of the body movements and co-speech gestures of Rui
Horta’s dancers and of the spaces they create is a way to find out how the
choreographer uses proxemics, for instance, to express abstractions like
freedom, standardized society and lack of communication in relations between
the single and the group. The way people position themselves in relation to one
another in space, and the different spaces of interaction they create, convey
relevant cues for the interpretation of both interpersonal relations and the
engagement and disengagement in interaction. The positioning of interacting
people in space has been the object of research of scholars such as Hall (1969)
or Kendon (1990), and more recently Haviland (2000), Özyürek (2002) or
Sweetser & Sizemore (2006).
Building on the differences between Conventional metaphors vs. Idiosyncratic
metaphors (Müller/ Chienki, 2009), the paper deals with metaphors, emotions
and spaces in artistic narratives such as contemporary dance, while attempting
to describe and analyse the more recurrent conceptual metaphors encountered
both in the rehearsal videos and in the corresponding shootings of the
premiered pieces by the choreographer in question (e.g. life as a journey; life as
a stage; love as war; body as territory/geographic map; emotions as forces;
control as up; weakness as down).
Departing from the tenet that “metaphor is not a figure of speech, but a mode of
thought” (Lakoff 1993:210), and therefore understanding that metaphor does
occur in other modes than language alone, we frame our multimodal analysis of
dance videos within the findings of Multimodal Metaphor theory as presented in
Forceville & Urios-Aparisi (2009). We suggest that conceptual metaphors find
expression in: the dance movements themselves – and not just in the
choreographer’s and his interpreters’ speech, therefore unfolding in time and
space; in the interaction spaces between the dancers; and in most of the visual
signs used by the choreographer in ways that are not always translatable into
language. These semiotic elements may be taken, as “direct” manifestations of
the conceptual metaphors unmediated by language.
References:
Calbris, G. (2011), Elements of Meaning in Gesture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Fernandes, C. & Jürgens, S. 2010. “Transdisciplinary research bridging cognitive
linguistics and digital performance: from multimodal corpora to choreographic
knowledge-bases”, In Performing Technology: User Content and the New Digital
Media. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 19-33.
Forceville, C./ Urios-Aparisi, E. (2009) Multimodal Metaphor. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Grady, Joseph. 1997. Foundations of meaning: primary metaphors and primary
scenes. University of California, Berkeley: Ph.D. Dissertation.
Haviland, J. (2000) “Pointing, gesture spaces and mental maps”. In: McNeill, D. (ed.)
Language and Gesture. Cambridge: CUP.
Kendon, Adam (1990) Conducting Interaction. Cambridge, CUP.
Kipp, M., Martin, J.C., Paggio, P., Heylen, D. (Eds.). (2009) Multimodal Corpora: From
Models of Natural Interaction to Systems and Applications, Lecture Notes on Aritificial
Intelligence, LNAI 5509: Springer.
Müller, C. & Chienki, A. (2008) Metaphor, gesture and thought. In: Raymond W. Gibbs
(ed.): Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge 2008, p. 483-501.
Müller, C. & Chienki, A. (2009) “Words, Gestures and beyond”. In: Forceville, C./Urios-
Aparisi (eds.) Multimodal Metaphor, Berlin: de Gruyter, 297-328.
Oakley, Todd. 1998. Conceptual blending, narrative discourse, and rhetoric. Cognitive
Linguistics 9:321-360.
Özyürek, A. (2002) “Do speakers design their co-speech gestures for their
addressees?” In: Journal of memory and Language 46, 688-704.
Sweetser, E. & Sizemore, M. (2006) Personal and interpersonal gesture spaces”.
In: Tyler, A., Kim, Y. Takada, M. (eds.), Language in the Context of Use. Berlin: de
Gruyter, 31-58.
Turner, Mark. 1996. The Literary Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Catherine Ann Cameron (UBC) & Julia Gillen (Lancaster University)
Friday, May 18th
Buchanan A201
Introduction: We explored telephone interactions between young children and adult
family members as contributing insights to the co-construction of identities (Marcia,
2002) within both the nuclear and the extended family (Blackledge and Creese, 2008;
Ochs & Capps, 2001). We deployed methods of linguistic ethnology to enrich the scope
of pragmatics, semiotic resources and temporal range of engagement (Maybin &
Trusting, 2011). Our premise was that intimate relatives have knowledgeable
appreciation of their child’s affective and cognitive worlds (Göncü, 1999; Gonzalez, Moll
& Amanti, 2005) that they can call upon to enhance emerging language use and narrative
productions, and especially in distanced communications (Aarsand & Aronsson, 2007).
Talking over the telephone potentially scaffolds children’s skills at offering clear,
cohesive communications, and elaborated narratives (Cameron & Hutchison 2009).
Methodology: Examination of the corpora of four preschool children in telephone
interactions with a family member showed them to employ extensive expressive power to
negotiate considerable communicative space in having both emotional and cognitive
needs addressed. These techniques included: participant discussions to aid interpretation;
photography of sites and phenomena discussed to stimulate participants’ recall and aid
interpretation (Pink 2006); participant observation. These extended methods beyond
transcription analysis enhanced interpretative endeavors. Participants were five pairs of
lower- to middle-income family couples: one mother-son pair, two mother-daughter pairs
one father-daughter pair, and one grandmother-granddaughter pair. All the children were
between four-and-one-half and five-and-three-quarters years of age when the exchanges
occurred. One participating parent was a librarian; two family members were university
faculty members; one parent, a car mechanic; and one, a telephone call-centre service
representative. We recruited research participants in families where telephone
interactions between parent/grandparent and child were relatively uncommon, but where
launching calls for our research was welcomed for additional familial contact.
Findings: Five-year-old Sam and his mother, talking on the phone (Mother at work, and
Sam at home) achieved inter-subjectivity about questions of fact, such as whether the
insect that stung him was a wasp or a bee, in spite of the challenges of their
decontextualized situations by virtue of their mutual personal and familial knowledge and
parental modeling of mutual respect. Sarah, four years, and Mother negotiate what her
mother looked like at a certain point in time, and how tall she must have been (not an
‘Bitty-Baby’ size, not the size of Raggedy Ann, but the size of Raggedy Ann plus a small
doll on her head) and engaging in apparently accurate speculation about Mother’s current
desire states. Fumiko, age five, discusses with her mechanic father the sorts of cars he
might have fixed that day, speculating as to which colors of cars are their most favorite.
Emily exchanges with her distant grandmother her experiences on the first day of school
and lapses into a discussion of a previously shared Christmas.
Discussion: We support the proposal that identities are co-constructed as stories about persons and shared experiences are (Reddy, 2008; Reddy & Trevarthan, 2004; Sfard &
Prusak, 2005; Schatz, 2007). We noted the high degree of mutuality within informal
pedagogic encounters that Rogoff (2003) characterizes as ‘guided participation’. We also
conclude that using diverse techniques to come to emic appreciation of participants’
perspectives is essential to deepening interpretive understanding.
References
Aarsand, P.A. & Aronsson, K. (2009). Gaming and territorial negotiations in family life.
Childhood, 16(4), 497-517. doi: 10.1177/0907568209343879
Blackledge, A. & Creese, A. (2008). Contesting ‘language’ as ‘heritage’: Negotiation of
identities in late modernity. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 533-554. doi:
10.1093/aplin/amn024.
Cameron, C.A. & Hutchison, J. (2009). Telephone-mediated communication effects on
young children’s oral and written narratives. First Language, 29(4), 343-367.
Göncü, A. (1999). Children’s and researchers’ engagement in the world. In A. Göncü.
(Ed.). Children’s engagement in the world: Sociocultural perspectives. (pp. 3-22).
New York NY: Cambridge University Press.
González, N., Moll, L. C. & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practice
in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Marcia, J. E. (2002). Adolescence, identity, and the Bernardone family. Identity: An
International Journal of Theory and Research 23, 199–209. doi:
10.1207/S1532706XD0203_01
Maybin, J. & Tusting, K. (2011). Linguistic ethnography. In J.Simpson (Ed.) The
Routledge handbook of applied linguistics. London UK: Routledge.
Ochs, E. &∓ Capps, L. (2001). Living narrative: Creating lives in every day story telling.
Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Pink, S. (2006). Doing visual ethnography: Images, media and representation in
research. 2nd ed. Los Angeles CA: Sage.
Reddy, V. (2008). How infants know minds. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Reddy, V. & Trevarthan, C. (2004). What we learn about babies from engaging their
emotions. Zero to Three, 3, pp. 9-15, ISSN 0736-8038.
Rogoff B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford UK: Oxford
University Press.
Sfard, A. & Prusak, A. (2005). Telling identities: in search of an analytic tool for
investigating learning as a culturally shaped activity. Educational Researcher, 34,
14-22.
Shatz, M. (2007). Revisiting “A toddler’s life for the toddler years”: Conversational
participation as a tool for learning across knowledge domains. In C. A. Brownell
& C. B. Kopp (Eds.) Socioemotional development in the toddler years: Transitions and transformations. (pp. xv-xli). New York NY: Guilford Press.
Catherine Ann Cameron, Psychology Department, UBC,
2136 West Mall, Vancouver BC V6T 1Z4;
Tel: 604.822.9078
Fax: 604.822.6923
acameron@psych.ubc.ca
Julia Gillen,
Literacy Research Centre, Department of Linguistics and English Language,
Lancaster University, UK, LA1 4YT
Tel: +44 (0) 1524 510830
j.gillen@lancaster.ac.uk