Abstract
Paradigmatic literacy features refer to ways of thinking and using language associated with academic-scientific discourse or written language. They are intimately bound up with education and appear in their emergent forms, mainly in conversations with adult partners. The present qualitative study investigates whether, and in which ways, paradigmatic literacy features emerge in pre-schoolers and fourth graders' argumentation in natural peer interactions. Segments of peer talk identified as argumentative discursive events served as our basic unit of analysis and were analysed from a discourse analytic perspective. The findings indicate that paradigmatic literacy features are embedded in peer talk at the macro level, in talk of an exploratory nature when children detach themselves from the ‘here and now’ and apply paradigmatic ways of thinking. Similarly, specific linguistic configurations related to academic discourse that manifest authority and degrees of distancing or abstractedness feature in children’s natural conversations as well. In both cases, paradigmatic literacy features fulfil social functions in peer talk. In light of the current findings, we discuss the potential contribution of peer talk to the wider context of dialogism, as well as the scope of literacy beyond the modality in question.
Introduction
The present study derives from two assumptions: The first being that the field of enquiry of children’s peer talk that deals with language socialisation, second language learning and child-discourse has indicated that peer talk offers children a wide range of opportunities for mutual learning (Blum Kulka and Snow, 2004). Peer talk is collaborative, multi-party and symmetrical in its participation structure, and it constitutes a ‘double opportunity space’ for children (Blum-Kulka et al., 2004: 308). Namely, it affords children’s active contribution to their own learning by supplying fertile soil for children’s construction of their social and cultural world, while they concomitantly develop language and discourse skills. In peer interactions, children ‘negotiate meanings and relationships related to their local peer culture, while at the same time the dynamics of participation in different discursive events create rich contextual opportunities for language and pragmatic development’ (Cekaite et al., 2014: 5). Thus, peer talk becomes a propitious source for investigation of other types of gains or affordances achieved when children spontaneously interact with each other (Nelson, 2014).
The second assumption is that the very nature of literacy has changed over time. Scholars have emphasized the ongoing interdependence between written and spoken language (Heath, 1984), interacting in varied and fluctuating ways (Gee, 2006; Watson, 2001), echoing each other, or displayed as two continua with degrees of overlap or similarities in structure and function (Chafe and Tannen, 1987; Tannen, 1982). The introduction of writing systems promoted the development of discursive strategies for achieving text autonomy that affected oral language as well (Watson, 2001), but at the same time, literacy has been largely ‘oralised’ in the last decades (Nelson, 2014). Thus, it appears that literate and oral features cross the boundaries between modalities (such as oral and written) or discourse (such as colloquial and academic discourse) and the relationship between them either lies on a continuum or is less clear-cut (Gee, 2006; Snow, 2010).
In line with these assumptions, children who grow up in a literate society share aspects of the literate space and participate in practices that provide a platform for entering the literate world. For instance, when reading or ‘pretending’ to read books, participating in circle time or school talk with their teachers or paying attention to extensive explanations of adult partners, young children are exposed to ways of using language identified with literate discourse, which become part of children’s linguistic resources. As such, children can use them across a variety of interactions, contexts and modalities. The purpose of the present study is to show that paradigmatic literacy features (henceforth PLF) that are associated with schooling or academic discourse prevail in school-based written discourse. These features, which characterise mainly adult–children talk, emerge in subtle and distinctive ways in children’s natural peer talk. To that end we first define the concept of PLF, placing it in its proper theoretical framework; then, in order to investigate the occurrence of PLF, we explain why events of an argumentative character constitute an enabling environment in peer talk. Finally, we will discuss the findings in the broad context of dialogic talk, with particular reference to events of an argumentative nature and briefly consider some educational implications based on the nature of the spoken language used by the children in the data.
Paradigmatic literacy features
The notion of PLF traces back to Bruner's basic distinction between the narrative and paradigmatic modes as different ways humans use to interpret and understand the world and their experiences (Bruner, 1985, 1986). Each of these modes has its own operating principles, strengths and criteria for being considered well-formed. The narrative mode concerns itself with the meaning that is ascribed to experiences through stories that are about ‘human or humanlike intention and action and the vicissitudes and consequences that mark their course’ (Bruner, 1985: 98). Its goal is to explain the individual, to convince and even captivate and it relates to particular events and actions, making meaning of experiences. In contrast, the paradigmatic mode is associated with the scientific mode of thinking and its goal is to test knowledge, theories and explanations by systematically applying logical thinking, categorization or conceptualization that help to identify relations in the world. The paradigmatic mode offers the power of prediction based on testing hypotheses about the nature of reality, whereas the narrative one organizes the world of human intention and action into a meaningful structure. Both modes also differ in features that originate from different language use and structure. 1 Seemingly, Bruner argues, ‘arguments (if I may use that term for what it is produced in the paradigmatic mode) and stories, if they are to emphasize respectively cause and intentions, require forms of language that are markedly different’ (Bruner, 1985: 106).
Bruner’s paradigmatic mode is also reminiscent of Vygotsky’s (1986) distinction between spontaneous and scientific ways of understanding. Wells states that ‘the relationship between Bruner's paradigmatic mode of thought and the thinking that is brought into being through the deployment of scientific concepts is clearly apparent’ (Wells, 1994). This means that the paradigmatic mode is associated with the ‘language of science’ (Halliday, 2004; Lemke, 1990), ‘language of schooling’ (Schleppegrell, 2001) or ‘academic language’ (Snow and Uccelli, 2009). As such, it comprises ways of thinking about epistemic essence, evaluating hypothetical scenarios, appealing to an authority, making predictions or generalizing, to mention but a few of them (Pontecorvo and Arcidiacono, 2010). As mentioned above, different linguistic configurations are associated with the narrative and paradigmatic modes. The paradigmatic mode has its own linguistic features, which are used for conveying ideas such as the use of complex subjects, nominalizations, passive constructions, specialized vocabulary, abstract generalizations and adopting a detached stance (Gee, 2004; Halliday, 2004; Lemke, 1990; Livnat, 2012). These types of features are frequent or abound in ‘…the synoptic mode of language use that is characteristic of the written scientific genres that children first encounter in school’ (Wells, 1994: 10) and in teacher–children talk in formal science activities (see for instance, Kurth et al., 2002; Na and Song, 2014; Siry et al., 2012). However, PLF can emerge in non-formal oral activities that resemble ways of speaking that are often associated with formal schooling, such as labeling, explaining, giving accurate responses or summarizing (Bailey and Heritage, 2008; Snow, 2010). They are found in non-formal and out-of-school talk, such as in family dinner talk, when children are expected to explain or apply ways of thinking associated with de-contextualized discourse (Blum-Kulka, 2002; Pontecorvo and Arcidiacono, 2010). They are additionally found in shared parent-child reading of informative books (Pappas, 2006). Even when parents see the interactions with very young children as learning opportunities, they tend to create a linguistic context that contains features of academic register such as lexical diversity, lexical noun phrases and distance or non-present talk (Henrichs, 2010). In summary, similar to academic language that falls ‘toward one end of a continuum – defined by formality of tone, complexity of content, and degree of impersonality of stance – with informal, casual, conversational language at the other extreme’ (Snow, 2010: 450), PLF can emerge in different degrees and configurations in formal as well as non-formal contexts. They emerge at both the macro-level when children are required to apply ways of thinking associated with the paradigmatic mode and at the micro-level, in the form of specific linguistic configurations, as described in the following sections.
Paradigmatic literacy features in exploratory talk
PLF often characterises talk about distant, de-contextualized or remote topics. Preschool children, for instance, use PLF to deal with remote, non-present scenarios, mainly during pretend play when they explore topics or hypothetical scenarios as alternatives to reality. In this case, children create and take for granted common ground, pre-assuming that alternatives and remote worlds do exist. However, children extend and test hypothetical scenarios in non-play contexts as well, as in the case of talk of an exploratory nature. In exploratory talk, children detach their talk from the here-and-now, engage constructively in conversation where they jointly consider different proposals or ideas in challenging ways, and use language as a tool for ‘making the knowledge publicly accountable and reasoning visible’ (Mercer et al., 1999: 97). In such talk, children are free to explore all options, as scientists do, while still required to create explicit terms to be agreed upon by other participants (Gopnik, 2009). A body of evidence indicates the nature and contribution of exploratory talk, mainly in the context of classroom discourse under adult guidance (see for instance, Mercer and Hodgkinson, 2008). Nevertheless, children’s exploratory talk is without adult guidance, ‘though being characterised as hesitant or incomplete, they still enabled children to try out ideas, to hear how they sound, to see what others make of them, and to arrange information and ideas into different patterns’ (Barnes, 1992: 126). 2 There is little evidence that preschool children use exploratory talk to engage their peers in talk about topics from socially remote spheres, or engage in long and not goal-oriented conversations that are social activities or conversations in their own right (for exceptions, see children’s discussion about ethnicity in Hamo and Blum Kulka, 2007; or in Aukrust and Rydland, 2009). Even so, some studies indicate that when children are involved in relatively long discussions about abstract or remote topics, they display modes of thinking identified with the paradigmatic mode that will later constitute the foundation of scientific reasoning (Zadunaisky Ehrlich and Blum Kulka, 2010, 2014).
Paradigmatic literacy features: Achieving distancing and authority
Beyond the macro-level of exploratory talk in which PLF emerge are certain specific linguistic configurations identified with the paradigmatic mode. One of them, which characterises the scientific or academic discourse, assumes a detached and distant stance; such a stance aims to diminish the speaker's presence – also known as downgrading the agent – which lets the facts speak for themselves with the goal of reaching an objective position (Livnat, 2012). Different linguistic means express a detached and even abstract stance. One of them is the use of nominalization – a process by which nouns derive from actions or adjectives (e.g. the noun ‘comparison’ derives from the verb ‘compare’, and the noun ‘privacy’ derives from the adjective ‘private’). This process demands language transformation by which the use of nouns refers to ‘entities’, whereas the use of nominalizations refers to ‘processes’ (Halliday, 2004). In nominalisation, the meaning is ‘packed’ (to use Hallidays' term, 2004: 28); the same content or meaning remains but in a compact way, making the agent of the action disappear. In this way, nominalisation is placed on the axis of distancing since it abstracts away from agents and immediate experiences. Nominalised forms are frequent in technical language or technical terminology (Halliday and Martin, 1993) – the more technical and specialized the subjects are, the more frequent and complex are the occurrence of nominalisations in academic discourse (Briones et al., 2003). Avoidance of the agent of an action creates an appearance of objectivity and contributes to the establishment of an authoritative stance.
Other ways of expressing authority are by appealing to external sources (Livnat, 2012; Schleppegrell, 2001) or generalising. Generalisation means going beyond a particular case and striving for a universal understanding of general principles (Bruner, 1986). Generalisations constitute one of the critical steps for children's development of higher mental functions (Wertsch and Stone, 1985). They characterise the paradigmatic mode and are frequent in academic texts, where topics are usually framed in terms of general events or principles for reaching higher levels of abstraction (Lemke, 1990). Generalisations are associated with educational processes and with children’s transition from everyday/common-sense to ‘non-common sense’/scientific knowledge (Halliday and Martin, 1993). Data gathered in non-experimental circumstances show that starting from preschool age, English-speaking children are able to generalise and classify in interactions with adults (Painter, 1999). However, it seems that asymmetrical communicative situations can explain why this capacity is not expressed among the children in this setting, where the teachers are those who construct instances of generalisations in their attempt to promote ‘non-common sense’/scientific order (Kondyli and Lykou, 2008).
In summary, exploratory talk and specific linguistic features related to the paradigmatic mode are fundamentally associated with the impact of education, and as such they characterize written and/or academic texts and classroom discourse. However, we assume that features associated with literacy exist on a continuum ‘from interactive conversation at one end, via personal experience and fictive narratives, to informative texts, expository discussions and research papers, at the other’ (Berman, 2011: 341). Thus, we show that, with much lower frequency and less intensity, PLF emerge in out-of-school, non-formal conversations between adults and children. This study aims to question whether these features emerge in children’s spontaneous conversations and which functions they fulfil, focusing on argumentative events due to their significance in peer talk.
Argumentation in peer talk
Participation in argumentative events is a social practice through which children maintain and/or transform the social order, negotiate status and identities. While performing the said functions, children co-construct meanings in their own culture (Corsaro and Rizzo, 1990). The topics under discussion range from those related to children’s ongoing shared activities, to friendship values (Dunn, 2004), conventions and game rules (Cobb-Moore et al., 2009). Though argumentative events are oppositional by nature, children still show in events of an argumentative character their willingness to maintain friendship values and apply strategies aimed at promoting solidarity within the group (Kampf and Blum-Kulka, 2011).
Different perspectives can be used when approaching argumentation in children's peer talk. The anthropological view highlights argumentation among peers as embedded in larger cultural processes (Corsaro and Rizzo, 1990). The developmental view advocates children developing argumentative skills (Stein and Albro, 2001), while the integrative views display the various affordances of argumentative events in peer talk that function ‘as cultural events and offer developmental opportunities through moments of intense meaning making in children’s world (see for instance, Zadunaisky Ehrlich and Blum Kulka, 2014: 39). From an educational perspective, the field of argumentation lies on a spectrum, from argumentation deriving from logic and monologic stance at one end, to those that taking a more rhetorical line at the other; these highlight the multi-voiced nature of argumentation and the goal of examining alternative positions (Andrews, 2005, 2009). In the United Kingdom, for instance, while traditional notions perceive argumentation mainly as a process of reasoning, such notions have evolved towards re-definitions emphasising dynamic, dialogic and multimodal ways of debating and exploring differences (Coffin and O’Halloran, 2009). The study of peer argumentation reflects a shift from viewing argumentation as a purely individual epistemic activity to a view of argumentation as a social activity conducted in a principled way (Forman, 1996). In classroom routines, peer argumentation strongly relates to learning in collaboration (Collaborative Learning), i.e. groups of students who work together and balance arguments and counter-arguments to find resolutions to problems (Weinberger and Fischer, 2006) or create products (see Littleton et al., 2000). This re-conceptualisation of argumentation shares some similarities with children's peer talk in natural interactions, where children engage in situations which include problems, discussions or conflicts that need to be solved, either in order to continue the shared activity or prevent social relations from being compromised (Kampf and Blum-Kulka, 2011).
Regardless of the approach applied, all agree that argumentative events are frequent and central in natural peer talk, thus being a propitious genre to investigate whether PLF is present.
Methods
Participants and data gathering
The excerpts presented below were extracted from data gathered longitudinally over a period of three years as part of a research project called ‘Gaining Autonomy in Genres of Extended Discourse’ (Blum-Kulka et al., 2004). 3 The data here were gathered during the first year of study of peer interactions in natural settings in two different age groups: 14 preschool children (aged 4; 6) and 14 fourth graders (aged 9–10). All children were monolingual native Hebrew speakers with normal linguistic competence, coming from a wide range of family structures, parental education and occupations. The target children in both groups wore lapel microphones and were recorded in different settings: the preschoolers were recorded in free-play periods at preschool and the fourth graders during meals in fast-food restaurants or on the way to and from dinner. The recording formats in both settings emerged as preferred slots for sociable peer talk, reflecting the ethnographic stance of the current study, which aimed to document peer talk in optimal conditions. Observations by one of the team's researchers supplemented the audio recordings. The participation structure varied in both groups: while preschoolers participated mainly in dyadic and multi-party talk, including both same sex and mixed interactions, all of the fourth graders’ interactions (with one exception) were same-sex dyadic interactions. All data were transcribed using an amended version of the Jeffersonian conversational analytic transcription system (see Appendix for transcription conventions, and Hamo, 2004 for a methodological discussion).
Data analysis
Stretches of talk that are identified as argumentative events serve as our basic units of analysis. They consist of sequences in which at least two parties take alternative positions on the same issue and develop adversative positions in various ways by providing justifications, grounds, support, explanations and so on. We adopt this definition from a discourse analysis tradition that views argumentation as a highly context-dependent and dialogic activity (Grimshaw, 1990). While this definition is broad enough, and comprises instances that range from discussions to disputes, we focus here on the former since discussions – as opposed to disputes – are usually identified with rationality and with the application of coherent thinking tools. Therefore, they become a proper niche by which to investigate whether PLF are present. Based on a detailed discourse analysis and on the theoretical framework previously stipulated, we identified PLF in different argumentative events at the macro-level as well as the micro-level.
Findings
Paradigmatic literacy features in exploratory talk
The following two argumentative events display children exploring hypothetical scenarios. The first one was extracted from the cohort of fourth graders who engaged in a discussion concerning what would happen if the country was 64 cm long. In the second one, pre-schoolers discuss whether it is possible to enter a TV and defeat a cartoon character. Both excerpts illustrate ways of talking related to paradigmatic ways of thinking (Table 1).
Excerpt 1: ‘640 kilometres’. Participants: Roi, 9; 5, m; Ofir, 9; 5, m; Observer, f. December, 1999. Two fourth graders, Ofir and Roi, are in the back seat of the car. The researcher is driving back home, after sharing a meal.
Excerpt 2: ‘She ((Bilbi)) will never disappear’. Participants: Naomi, 5;9, f; Oren, 5;10, m; Yoav, 4;3, m; Agar, 4;5, m; Ronit, 4;8, f and an other three children. January 2000, Galit Kindergarten. The children are sitting by the drawing table. The conversation starts as a discussion about Bilbi – a well-known cartoon TV character. In previous turns, Yoav wants to enter the TV and defeat the cartoon character, but Agar explains to him that his TV will be ruined. From that point, the conversation evolves to consider if it is possible to make the character disappear.
Excerpt 3: ‘It’s a loss’. Participants: Rami, 5;8; Rafael, 6 , Guy, 6 , Danni, 5;9 and Yoav, 4;4. February-2000, ‘Batish’ kinder-garden, Jerusalem. The children are playing with the computer; some are sitting by the keyboard, taking turns and commenting on each other’s moves.
Excerpt 4: ‘Guy explained to me’. Participants: Rami, 5;8; Rafael, 6, Guy, 6, Danni, 5;9 and Yoav, 4;4. February 2000, ‘Batish’ kinder-garden, Jerusalem.
Excerpt 5: ‘Cats eat mice’. Participants: Raxeli, 4; 7, Naor, 4, Erez, 5;10, Daniela, 5;9 and unidentified child. March 2000, ‘Batish’ kinder-garden, Jerusalem. The children are sitting around the food table during lunchtime. They are dressed that day in costumes of different animals.
As the conversation evolves, it is arguable that the claim that no one would ever drive that much leads to a topic shift, introducing a discussion about the estimated size of the country as a resource for estimating reasonable driving distances (380). Roi's estimation of Israel's length is met with scepticism on the part of Ofir, so he turns to the observer as an authoritative source of information (turns omitted). When the observer fails to provide him with information, he attempts to go on with his argument (386), though hedging his estimation as approximate. This attempt is aborted by Roi's slip of the tongue, when he says ‘metre’ instead of ‘kilometre’. Ofir notices this mistake (387), opening a conversational slot for Roi to correct himself (388). At this point, the conversation becomes a cooperative discussion in which the two boys jointly and jokingly consider the ramifications of a hypothetical country of 640 metres, gradually sharpening the absurdity of the concept. This explanatory sequence of why such a situation would be impossible evolves gradually, moving from the limitations on the size of the population (389) and its living conditions (390) to the implications for individual behaviour (392). Both children explore the possibilities and limitations of a hypothetical country of 640 metres and evaluate it to the smallest details. The sequence evolves with growing degrees of humour and absurdity, starting with the difficulty of walking (turn 391) and ending with wetting one's pants (turn 394). The testing of this hypothetical situation is funny and highly cooperative with additives supporting cross-turn cohesion (391, 394). The arguments are co-constructed as each turn relates to the previous one by building upon it to add another claim (391–392), either by confirming it (393) or by a combination of both confirmation and incorporation into a newly-produced claim (in turn 390, Roi confirms Ofir's suggestion by incorporating it into a new statement). The conversation reaches another level of absurdity when Ofir initiates a new parallel sequence by testing what would happen if the country was even smaller – 640 centimetres (394–395). The children fully cooperate and jointly produce a feasible argument across no less than five turns (‘then one person would fit in approximately ((and)) very crowded’ turns 395–399). Even when discussing the topic ad absurdum in playful ways, the children respond to the requirements of consistency and non-contradiction and maintain an epistemological stance that characterizes the one required in paradigmatic discourse. This is done by making inferences about the imagined states of affairs. For instance, the children infer that in a country of 640 cm, it would be crowded so you would need to start jumping on top of everybody (390, 391 and 393). The children mutually estimate the proportion of the new country by comparing it to the cabin of a door attendant and its representation on a map as an atom. The way the topic evolves during the whole sequence indicates the participants’ capability to distance and reach new spheres in their conversation as they draw on available topical resources, such as noticing objects in their physical context, towards an extended discussion on more distant topics, conducted predominantly in the hypothetical mode. Note also the occurrence of the verb ‘taxshov' (think) (280, 295), which is clearly associated with an epistemic stance and paradigmatic discourse (Kärkkäinen, 2003). Similarly, the dominant genres in this sequence are explanations and argumentation, which both relate to paradigmatic discourse, in particular in scientific or formal learning contexts (McNeill, 2009). When Roi's mistake opens up the opportunity for a discussion, the boys seize on this opportunity for exploration and elaboration, rather than merely repairing this breakdown and moving forward. The sociable setting was supported by the framing and mood of the interaction, which was geared towards humour, entertainment and mutual sociable enjoyment (Table 2).
In the excerpt above, the children explore the boundaries between fiction and reality, between media and audience (whether one can ‘say’ something to the TV in turn 34), and between a fictional character and a real-life figure (30) (Blum-Kulka and Hamo, 2010). The children perceive the TV as an impenetrable virtual space (26, 29, and 32), but at the same time as a real physical space with allowed but restricted entry (to some parents) (36, 53). Explanations abound when children discuss the changing status of a subject – a subject that is unable to see itself during filming is only viewed by the audience, but it has the possibility of seeing itself after filming (61). During the whole sequence the children open slots by conveying conditional meanings (if-then), which indicates that even without knowing it, they ‘practise' counterfactual reasoning to advance their argumentative goals (‘if you are filming, then you can’t see yourself at the TV’, ‘if you work at the TV, then you are allowed to enter’). The children move gradually from a specific and local issue rooted in their shared knowledge of a widely popular TV cartoon character – Bilbi – towards more remote and complex issues. As the discussion evolves, the children offer their unique perspectives, which are sometimes based on their own logic, mixing fiction and reality (30), but also on general logic based on the real world (26, 32). Additionally, the children use epistemic expressions related to paradigmatic discourse, such as ‘efshar' (it is possible) or ‘yaxol lihyiot' (it can be), which both open the way to evaluate alternative or hypothetical possibilities. In the above excerpt, the children formulate their arguments and counterarguments in reasonable ways, mixing the paradigmatic mode with the narrative one. Note the formulation of a general principle ‘you can’t say anything to the TV’ (34) alongside the recounting of personal experiences (55, 61), respectively. This mode-mixing was also documented in the course of preschool and even school science lessons, where young children weave personal experiences with general scientific principles (Peterson, 2009; Peterson and French, 2008). It can also be viewed when both modes are intertwined, helping children make sense and bridge gaps (Kurth et al., 2002; Zabel and Gropengiesser, 2015).
In summary, we illustrate above that argumentative events in peer talk look like ‘discussions with too much edge’ (Andrews, 2014: 171). Andrews analyses a discussion at pre-school about whether playtime is good or bad and argues that the ‘edge’ creates contradictions and causes children to bring evidence to bear on propositions, show disagreement without falling out with each other, while arguing about topics they care about and bring complex abstraction and interaction to bear. In addition, the above excerpts demonstrate how children discuss complex issues in amusing ways while they concomitantly display paradigmatic ways of approaching the topics under disagreement.
Paradigmatic literacy features: Ways of achieving distance and authority
As mentioned in the theoretical framework, nominalisations and generalisations are documented ways of achieving distance and authority that characterise academic discourse and are associated with the paradigmatic mode. The following excerpts illustrate how these features occur in peer talk. The first short sequence illustrates how nominalisation works in an adversative episode between children playing on a computer (Table 3).
A group of children played on the computer and discussed issues related to the computers’ functions. In excerpt 3, Yoav argued that he won the computer game (42) and Ramy contradicted him immediately (43) in a ‘ping-pong pattern’ (Livnat, 2012) – a particular type of arguing or debating in which confrontation emerges at the personal level. The use of opposing verbs (won/lost) overtly highlights the disagreement between the boys while creating cohesiveness between turns at the same time. Ramy justifies the claim that Yoav lost the game by providing an explanation based on a cue on the computer screen (the disappearance of the sun, in turn 46). Yoav replies and uses the action nominal ‘hasfada' (loss) derived from the verb ‘lehafsid’ (to lose). Note the wording of Yoav’s argument when he uses a nominal form. The action of losing as an occurrence is reorganized into the noun ‘loss’ which functions as a ‘thing’, and the agents of the actions – Ramy and Yoav – as well as other interpersonal elements (such as personal pronouns) are missing. Yoav’s claim is less interpersonal and turns to be more ‘objective’ and taken as a fact. He endorses it with a justification. Similar to the discourse of science, in which an authoritative stance is achieved when an author distances himself from the text, in turn 46, the reframing of the same meaning in a distant way increases the authoritative stance of Ramy's statement. In a similar way, later on in the same sequence, the children keep discussing knowledge and expertise in computers. When they talk about how to make the computer game faster or how to quit the game, the children also use the nominalised form ‘meirut’ (speed), derived from the adjective ‘mahir’ (fast) (Table 4).
In the segment above, Ramy positions himself as knowledgeable about computers in different ways: he uses ‘technical vocabulary’ – the nominalised form ‘meirut’ (speed) across turns (48, 50, and 54) and places himself in charge of giving instructions (52). He also endorses his authority as knowledgeable by citing Guy as an external source (57). The citation of an authoritative external source increases authenticity in academic discourse (Livnat, 2012). Finally, he uses in recurring occurrences the verbs ‘know’ or ‘explain’ (48, 56 and 57), which both represent an epistemic stance and frame Ramy’s statements as true.
Additional nominalised forms in our data were found in pretend play sequences based on Pokemons – the popular TV cartoon series broadcast at the time of data gathering. Pokemons are creatures with special powers that evolve into other creatures. During pretend play situations, children discuss the powers of Pokemons and their evolution (Zadunaisky Ehrlich and Blum Kulka, 2010). The topic of Pokemons becomes an ‘island of expertise’ (Crowley and Jacobs, 2002: 333). Islands of expertise refer to children’s shared topics of interests in which they develop deep and rich knowledge. When children show expertise in a topic, they use ‘technical language’ related to that topic as well, and as such, islands of expertise serve an ideal basis on which to build ‘informal lessons’ on school-based language in parent-child conversations (Gee, 2004). In the excerpt above, children display their expertise in Pokemons and use appropriate ‘technical’ language by using different nominalised forms, including nominalised compounds, which are noun and noun constructions also associated with a high register (Ravid and Avidor, 1998). Some of the nominalised forms were ‘makat barak’ (‘thunder blow’), ‘maarvolet esh’ (‘fire whirlpool’), ‘maxshir hadmaya’ (‘simulating device’), ‘mitkefet Krok’ (‘Krok's attack’), ‘atkafot’ (‘attacks’) and ‘hitpatxuyot’ (‘evolutions’). On one occasion, for instance, during a pretend Pokemon fight play, three boys discussed which Pokemon could attack the other and by what means. One of the children said ‘I took with me all the Pokemons and all the evolution’ and his friend replied ‘You can't. It's a fact. He already threw over you all of the attacks so you can't.’ The nominal ‘attacks’ contributed to the wrapping of the event's meaning in abstraction, while from the point of view of the argument flow, it turned the children’s claim into a fact. The use of the technical language of Pokemons gave the children’s arguments a dimension of preciseness and credibility towards the audience at which they were aimed. Although it is arguable that the above-mentioned compound forms are pre-‘established' or learned as ‘frozen' (from the TV programme), we have found additional, innovative and fully open-ended compounds in natural peer talk as well, such as ‘smixa meofefet’ (‘flying blanket’), ‘dirat ruxot’ (‘ghost apartment’), ‘xagurat xalal’ (‘space belt’), ‘tzivey hashara’ (‘enrichment colours’), to mention a few of them. There were also cases of definiteness marking in compounds, as in the case of ‘kluv hatinokot’ (‘the baby's cage’) or ‘keter hameluxa’ (‘the kingdom’s crown’). These forms reflect children’s lexical productivity and are difficult to acquire at school age and even beyond (Berman, 2009). In any case, nominalised forms functioned as rhetorical options, whose role was the display of expertise and the gaining of authority, and they were socially practised in peer talk as children discussed various subjects in different settings or in the context of pretend play.
The next excerpt illustrates that an additional way of gaining an authoritative voice is by going beyond a particular case or instance and generalising. The following excerpt illustrates this point and displays other paradigmatic elements in the conversation, such as grounding an explanation, exemplifying and dealing with a hypothetical scene (Table 5).
In the excerpt above, the children discuss the topic of animals and food. The conversation combines different levels of distancing: on the one hand, the children are concerned with the outside real world from which they learn common and generalised facts, such as ‘dogs like (to eat) cats’. On the other hand, they introduce elements from their fictional world (Pokemons), and in the midst of that they maintain a humorous key in the here-and-now interaction between them (for instance, Erez dressed as a wolf is incited to eat a cat, in turn 36). The whole discussion shows cross-turn cohesion that is achieved by additives or discourse markers (‘then’, ‘but, ‘and’, ‘right’), but mainly by the fact that each generalisation was built in response to the previous one – from dogs to cats, from cats to mice, then to animals, and last to Pokemons. Namely, during the discussion, each generalisation replaces or complements the previous one (37, 45 and 47, respectively). The lack of modal markers signals the authoritative mode. Note the different between stating ‘I think/believe or guess that cats like mice’ and stating unequivocally ‘cats like mice’. While modals might weaken the children’s commitment to the truth of their statement (Carrió-Pastor, 2014), the generalisations in the excerpt above were phrased in ways that left no space for negotiation, and as such they reflected authority.
This sequence displays argumentative elements as disagreements (37, 52), simple approvals (40, 46 or 50) and generalised statements grounded in explicit explanations (‘cats like mice because they are small things to swallow’) (47). Last, within the realm of the children's fantasy world, they evaluate an implicit hypothetical event – what would happen if animals ate Pokemons (51). Erez refutes this possibility and grounds it by using one of the Pokemons to exemplify his position (52). Even if it is not linguistically or explicitly marked, Erez's argument hides a conditional aspect that sounds convincing within the common premises of children's fictional worlds (if animals like Pokemons, and animals eat Pikachu, then they die or get electrocuted due to Pikachu's electrical powers).
To sum up, we found different instances of PLF in children’s ways of thinking during exploratory talk and in specific linguistic configurations that express distancing and establish authority as nominalisations and generalisations. We do not argue that PLF abound in natural peer talk. Instead, we do argue that these features cut across the modalities of writing and speaking and are not restricted to school talk, science lessons or adult–child interactions, or in texts produced monologically (such as when children produce an extensive explanation). In this study, we show examples from pre-schoolers and fourth graders' spontaneous argumentative events between peers that illustrate that PLF occur when children become agents of their own potential learning by justifying, evaluating hypothetical scenarios or discussing remote topics. In these cases, children apply ways related to the paradigmatic mode as well as using linguistic configurations that reflect some grade of abstractedness. The topics under discussion in the argumentative events above were unpredictable, not officially defined as ‘scientific’ and emerged naturally, and in some cases, even humorously, as part of childrens' shared activity. Nevertheless, even in these spontaneous conversations between peers, PLF appear to be part of the linguistic resources children use for argumentative purposes.
Discussion
The findings of the present study are discussed in light of dialogic approaches to interaction and learning, as well as the complex relationships between oral-literate features and the paradigmatic and narrative modes. Additionally, we will briefly refer to the educational implications of this study.
In regard to dialogism, the study of children’s peer talk represents the investigation of different dialogic practices. These dialogic practices are examined in the context of theories of dialogic action (Freire, 1970), dialogic enquiry (Wells, 1999), Per Linell’s dialogical paradigm (1998) and ‘dialogic learning’ (Alexander, 2006), to mention a few. Children’s peer talk provides an arena for true dialogue, being unique in comparison to other settings. For instance, research has shown that there is a restricted amount of true ‘dialogue’ in traditional classroom discourse, which results from the adherence to particular conversational rules that limit the potential value of talk between teachers and students (Mercer and Howe, 2012). In contrast, in argumentative events between peers and outside adult control, children freely manage the interaction by themselves and negotiate their own criteria of relevance, certainty and degree of acceptance of the arguments. Children’s peer talk unveils implications regarding the meaning of dialogic learning and is one expression of the ‘emerging pedagogy’ of the spoken word, which exploits the power of talk in shaping children’s thinking (Alexander, 2008: 1). Alexander (2005, 2008) proposes an approach to learning that takes place through dialogue and results from egalitarian positions. He refers to ‘learning talk' as children- rather than teacher-oriented and notes how the children themselves talk, as well as the repertoire of oral expression they experience. Such a repertoire includes, for example, the ability to narrate, explain, ask meaningful questions, act or build upon answers and argue. Learning talk repertoires are often missing from discussions of classroom interaction. Therefore, teachers are encouraged to investigate the kinds of talk in which children themselves engage, in order to be aware of the educational functions of talk and how these functions and features can be used to support children's learning (Alexander, 2008). In this sense, the present study contributes an examination of the properties of peer talk and the ways children spontaneously argue and learn from each other. Although the present study focuses on natural interaction where talking/arguing and learning are evaluated in different ways than in the school context, it can be said that the argumentative events analysed exemplify how children with peers build on their own and each other’s ideas in a cumulative manner. We have pinpointed literate features associated with the paradigmatic mode included in children’s talk, showing that children interact mainly with peers in an oral discourse style; at the same time, peer talk evolves within a literate community as well (Nelson, 2014). The data illustrate that alongside the features of the oral conversational discourse style, features related to literacy emerge in this setting. The emergence of literate features related to the paradigmatic mode in peer talk may be considered as one of the oral language skills children acquire which, together with other oral competences, underpin the development of literacy and become the foundations for the construction of future academic discourse (Bishop and Snowling, 2004; Blum-Kulka and Hamo, 2010; Dockrell and Connelly, 2009; Tabors et al., 2001).
Although limited in scope, the study presented herein explores children's mix of paradigmatic and narrative modes while interacting. Although Bruner (1990) assumes the two modes are distinct and mutually exclusive, he argues at the same time that ‘we devote an enormous amount of pedagogical effort to teaching the methods of science and rational thought: what is involved in verification, what constitutes contradiction … Yet we live most of our lives in a world constructed according to the rules and devices of narratives’ (Bruner, 1996: 149). He criticises the fact that only the scientific mode prevails in the teaching of science in the classroom setting, and proposes a conceptual change promoting the use of both narrative and paradigmatic modes. Accordingly, classroom studies have shown that narratives, particularly those produced by students themselves, help to bridge the gap between everyday concepts and scientific conceptions (Peterson, 2009; Zabel and Gropengiesser, 2015). Here, children also display paradigmatic modes when approaching a topic mixed with elements of narratives; this is done in order to give a principle or topic discussed an individual or particular meaning.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research project was funded by the American-Israel Binational Science Foundation Grant No. 980031, 1999–2002, and Grant No. 98301, 2002–2005, and by Israel Science Foundation ISF Grant No. 83201, 2001–2004.