More than Just Games: Language Socialization in an ... - CiteSeerX

More than Just Games: Language Socialization in an Immigrant Children’s Peer Group

Inmaculada M. García Sánchez University of California, Los Angeles

1.

Introduction

Studies of children’s social and linguistic competencies have increasingly been focusing their attention on children’s worlds and interactions in culturally situated activities from a variety of research perspectives. Notions of socialization as a psychological process conceived mainly in relation to child-adult units have been challenged in favor of a more comprehensive view of socialization that underscores child-to-child interactions as essential in socialization processes (Goodwin, 1997; Hutchby & Moran-Ellis, 1998). If it is true that there are still gaps in our knowledge of children’s worlds (Goodwin, 1997; Ochs, 2002), we now have an agentive view of childhood (Corsaro, 2000; Garret & Baquedano-López, 2002; Goodwin, 1990, 1998, 2000; Kulick & Schieffelin, 2004; Kyratzis, 2004; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986) very different from traditional perspectives in the social sciences that depict the child as an empty vessel and a passive recipient of culture. In spite of these new understandings of children’s linguistic practices in peer groups as crucial for the development of communicative competence, and as loci of social organization and cultural production, we still do not know much about how non-native speaker (NNS) children who are relative novices to their host language and society socialize one another into linguistic and larger socio-cultural competence and co-construct their own norms of behavior. The present study focuses on the interactional and socializing practices that immigrant NNS children engage in when undertaking socio-cultural activities, such as games, in an attempt to deepen our understanding of how NNS immigrant children become mentors for facilitating socio-cultural learning and competent language use. 2. Theoretical Background Corsaro (1979) was one of the first voices to point out the importance of children’s participation in peer groups for their evolving membership in society. In a series of comparative studies of Italian and U.S. nursery school children, Corsaro (1988, 1994) has studied how, through participation in their own peer cultures and appropriation of features of the social discourses of the wider adult culture, children construct their social identities. Goodwin has also explored peer interaction in vernacular settings, such as the Texas Linguistic Forum 49: 61-71 Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium About Language and Society - Austin April 15-17, 2005 © García Sánchez 2006

62

More Than Just Games

neighborhood (1990) and the playground (1998), where children organize and control the events. Furthermore, she has shown how speech activities become more elaborated in the social context of the peer group, since children are able to engage in linguistic practices, such as arguing, mocking, or insulting, all of which are discouraged by adults. Goodwin (1998) has argued that game settings constitute a superb arena to study how children establish social hierarchies, construct conflict - a phenomenon considered central to human development - and acquire the linguistic resources through which power is constructed via language. The importance of play and interaction has also surfaced in neo-Vygotskyan theories of socio-cultural learning. Language and play, two of the central issues in this study, are also critical to Vygotsky’s theory of how higher mental functioning in humans, such as thinking, reasoning, and voluntary attention, derives from interaction and participation in social life (Vygotsky, 1981; Wertsch, 1991). On the one hand, language plays an essential role in social life, since all human activity is mediated by tools and signs; on the other hand, play was thought by Vygotsky to create its own zone of proximal development for the child. Rogoff (1998) has pointed out that, in play, children contribute to each other’s learning as well as to their own development because these particular contexts allow them to experiment not only with the meaning of rules in game domains, but also with the meaning of socio-cultural rules in other domains of their daily lives. Thus, in collaborative play, children may need to make special efforts to understand others and make themselves understood, as well as to learn how to take the perspective of others in order to achieve intersubjectivity. These efforts to make communication clear and take the perspective of others afforded by collaborative peer interaction may be extremely important for the socialization and development of immigrant NNS children who do not share the same first language or the same cultural background, especially when it comes to solving conflicts and/or reaching compromises. Yet very little is known of the role that these forms of collaborative play have in how children learn to reason and to take the perspective of others. Also, Rogoff (1998) has called our attention to the need to establish the role that cultural tools, such as language, material technologies, and genres of communication, play in the learning processes of peer groups. Although in recent years there has been a renewed interest in the importance of peer talk and interaction for second language learning (Kyratzis, 2004), work on the interplay between play context and children’s second language learning dates back to the 1970s. Fillmore (1976), for instance, examined cognitive and social factors that enhance or inhibit children’s second language learning in naturalistic settings. She concluded that children’s second language acquisition (SLA) begins with the learning of formulaic speech, which becomes the basis for later novel creations. In this sense, Fillmore (1976) has emphasized the importance of peer social interaction on the playground in the learning of these formulas: the language used in play facilitates acquisition because it is highly predictable, repetitious, and embedded in context. Along these lines, Ervin-Tripp (1986) tried to account for the rapid learning process of language that usually takes place on the playground by analyzing how children can conduct successful play in spite of limited exposure to the second language. She has argued that games possess all of the characteristics that make children talk more: children-chosen topics, the here and now, and accompanying physical activity with partner scaffolding. Like Fillmore (1976), Ervin-Tripp (1986) has claimed that games allow for mirroring and imitation, since, in games, most of the roles are interchangeable and provide the prerequisites for language learning, such as opportunities for social interaction, enough motivation and interest for

63

García Sánchez, I. M.

the child to listen carefully to what is being said, and the opportunity for the child to relate these patterns to specific referents, concepts, and situations of use. More recently, Blum-Kulka and Snow (2004) have made a cogent case for the developmental contributions of peer talk to language learning and socialization. They maintain that, through mutual observation and interaction, children can learn how to act and how to communicate in pragmatically appropriate ways and that the symmetrical structure of peer play and the shared world of children’s cultures are powerful features in promoting children’s conversational skills. 3. Corpus and Data Analysis The corpus used in this study consists of video recordings of five NNS children playing hopscotch on a South Carolina school playground in 1996. The data used in this paper were made available by M. H. Goodwin; they were collected as part of a larger ethnographic study investigating the role of peer interaction in the construction of children’s socio-cultural worlds. This group of five children is composed of three females and two males, all age nine. The three female players are: Ning from China, Nazarine from Azerbaijan, and Maja from Saudi Arabia; the two males are: Joo-sung from Korea, and Jaime from Mexico. What all five children have in common, apart from their age, is that they have been living in the U.S. for no longer than a year. Some of them have only been in the country for a few months, thus making English, a language all of them know very little, the only linguistic code they have in common 1. This study analyzes the following dimensions of linguistic and socio-cultural learning: First, I will analyze social conduct in relation to rule violation: Aspects that are investigated in relation to the children’s rule violations include: (a) type of violation and (b) type of response. Then, I will analyze social cognition and cooperative learning: I will investigate the role that participation frameworks, language, gestures, and material artifacts play in children’s learning in collaborative play. Finally, I will focus on language learning, analyzing those strategies used by the children in order to learn new language from one another. 4. Peer Interaction and Children’s Social, Cognitive, and Linguistic Development 4.1 Peer Talk and Children’s Social Development Children’s responses to other children’s rule violations are central to immigrant children’s developing socio-cultural competence, since these responses usually entail 1

Transcription conventions adapted from Goodwin (1990), pp. 25-26:

: Lengthening . Falling contour ? Rising contour [ Overlap = Latching (no interval between turns) ~ Rapid speech Sudden cut-off (.) Brief Pause (( )) Comment by the transcriber. Not part of the talk being transcribed BOLD CAPITALS Increased volume

64


socializing attempts on the part of the children who draw attention to the violation as an object of public attention. Similarly, children’s responses to their own violations and to the reactions of others are crucial in order to understand to what extent they are able to understand and negotiate these rules successfully, and the consequence this has for the social and moral worlds children co-construct in concert with each other. Because the most common violations committed by the children have to do with conventional rules of the game, the framework developed by Goodwin (1998) for analyzing turn shapes of foul calls among groups of children’s playing hopscotch has been adopted: 1) problematic move; 2) polarity expression or response cry; 3) negative person descriptor; 4) justifications. In this particular group, children never ignore, mitigate, or change the rules. Rather they demand compliance in strong oppositional moves that display an orientation for aggravated forms of correction (Goodwin, 1998), since the players rarely make an effort to mitigate their disagreements, as can be seen in the following example: (1) ((Nazarine’s turn) Joo-sung: This will be ((Nazarine slightly leans on the ground with the tip of her foot)) Ning: NO:! ((pointing her finger at Nazarine)) Maja: No-you say like this ((repeating Nazarine’s mistake)) Jaime: ((walks over next to Nazarine and does a reenactment of her mistake)) Ning: [Yeah! Maja: [Yeah! Nazarine: Nu-uh Ning: [YEAH! Maja: [YEAH! Jaime: [YES Nazarine: No. Ning: We see it Maja: [YES Jaime: [YES= Joo-sung: [Ok, let me see. ((to Maja and Ning)) what? Jaime: Like this ((runs over to Nazarine’s spot)) Ning: [See ((runs over to Nazarine’s spot)) Maja: [Like this ((runs over to Nazarine’s spot)) ((Four of the participants are at the other end of the grid facing Joo-sung. Nazarine is not moving and has one foot up in the air. The other three are reenacting her mistake)). Jaime: Like [this Maja: [it go like this Joo-sung: Oh Nazarine: NO NO= Maja: =YES YES Ning: Yes Jaime: Out! (.) You’re out. Joo-sung: Out Nazarine: You’re crazy! ((as she moves off the grid)) Response cries are usually found in the turn preface, or very first thing said. The most pervasive utterance said is the polarity marker “NO:::!”. Response cries are pronounced

65


with an extremely high pitch that vocally highlights the opposition. Sometimes, they can also be accompanied by gestures that display an affective embodied alignment, such as shaking one’s head or pointing with the finger. The justification, sometimes consists of verbal reasons, i.e. “We see it,” which often claims visual access to the move being contested. More often, however, the children deploy multi-modal utterances, consisting of linguistic prompting and embodied demonstrations (Goodwin, M. H., Goodwin, C., & Yaeger-Dror, M., 2002). Through these embodied performances, the children are able to demonstrate their deep understanding of the rules by showing that their foul call is the result of a rule-governed analysis of the players’ move. Although these embodied demonstrations can recast a problematic move to fit the strategic interests of the players outside the grid, the children in this game seem to be orienting to a certain notion of legality in that for a foul call to take effect, the judges outside the grid must first reach a consensus that the move constitutes a violation. In this data segment, three players perform repeated embodied demonstrations of a problematic move made by Nazarine until all the children outside the grid come to a consensus that the move is a violation. Once the children outside the grid reach the consensus that a move constitutes a violation it must be accepted by the player who has to comply by leaving the grid and forfeiting her turn. Until other players reach a consensus, the violator can contest the foul call. During these exchanges, the children continue to adopt an oppositional type of footing or stance (Goffman, 1981). By exhibiting this type of affective response to rule violations, the children are not only socializing one another into a specific practice of gaming but also into a specific way of responding to the rule violations of others: the children socialize one another into how to construct a strong oppositional stance to others’ rule violations and how to demand compliance with the rules that structure the activity. In experimenting with the meaning of the rules to fit their strategic interests, children use multiple communicative resources in order to build persuasive lines of reasoning: a) linguistic arguments; b) structures in their environment (the hopscotch grid); c) embodied demonstrations. These episodes of rule negotiation may constitute a superb arena for NNS children’s acquisition of rhetorical skills and socialization into different styles of reasoning and argumentation. An important difference between this group of children and other groups of children playing hopscotch (Goodwin, 1998, 2000; Goodwin M. H., Goodwin C., & Yaeger-Dror M., 2002) is that the players in this group do not use negative person descriptors. Occasionally, the children use negative characterizations of a player’s move that, because of its accusatory nature, invoke a negative person descriptor. It must be said, however, that these types of turns are not very common. Moreover, sporadic uses of unmitigated forms of directives (Labov & Fanshel, 1977) between the players are met with negative reactions by the other children: (2) ((Joo-sung and Jaime are engaged in a side conversation)) Nazarine: You’re crazy! Ning: You: shut up! Nazarine: Shut up! Ning: Shut up! Nazarine: You shut up! Ning: Sh-shut up= Joo-sung: =O:::H! At the end of the previous example, after Nazarine loses her turn, she and Ning engage in

66


a verbal dispute consisting of a negative person descriptor (“you’re crazy”) followed by an exchange of what Brown and Levinson call bald directives on record (1978), which in its aggravated nature is equivalent to name-calling. While this is happening the other players are involved in a side conversation attending to other aspects of the game. As soon as Joo-sung realizes what is happening, the censure is immediate. Through these interactional practices, the children are socializing one another into language practices in which the use of these unmitigated negative characterizations is discouraged. This may have important implications for the social and moral development of the child in that, by socializing one another into the avoidance of dispreferred linguistic practices, they are also socializing one another into what constitutes appropriate social conduct and treatment of other players during the game in this peer group. 4.2 Peer Talk and Children’s Collaborative Learning Because in this particular game the children have different knowledge and levels of expertise with the game, in this section. I would like to explore how the children organize the structure of participation and how they use talk and embodied action to make it possible for less experienced and knowledgeable players not only to take part in the activity successfully, but also to learn abstract concepts, such as the rules of the game. One of the most pervasive and effective models for organizing children’s learning in the midst of joint social activity that has been discussed in the developmental literature is intent participation (Rogoff, Paradise, Mejía Arauz, Correa-Chávez, & Angelillo, 2003). Intent participation entails keen observation of an on-going activity in which the novice is already participating or expects to participate. Intent participation differs from other ways of organizing learning in that it involves collaboration and a horizontal participation structure in which experts participate alongside novices in the shared endeavor, serving as guides. Whereas in more hierarchical models of learning, children are first given directions and only then allowed to carry out an activity, in intent participation, learning is inextricably linked with participation in the activity itself. In this game, intent participation organizes the learning process of child novices in powerful ways. Rather than trying to teach all the rules prior to playing, children organize the explanation of new rules around the unfolding activity. Thus, children learn and teach new rules to each other as the local environment of the interaction makes available new moves and new possibilities. This can be seen the actions of Ning in the physical space of the grid: (3) ((Ning gets ready for her next round. She throws her token in from the right side of the grid)) Joo-sung: No, no! Nazarine: Easy... Joo-sung: No, no. you can do here ((he throws his token from the left side, showing her how to do it)) like this. Jaime: [Yeah Maja: [Yeah yeah= Joo-sung: =but you can’t do here ((standing on the right side of the grid)).

67


a. Ning throws from right

b. Joo-sung demonstrates correct and incorrect actions

In this instance, when Ning throws her token from the right side of the grid, Joo-sung objects by saying: “No, no!” and proceeds to describe how the move should be executed. Here, “no” is a second pair part in that Joo-sung makes a response to what Ning has just done. In objecting to, and using, Ning’s move as a point of departure for his ensuing explanation, Joo-sung defines the hopscotch grid not as a fixed context against which teaching and learning takes places, but as an interactive semiotic field, in which players are supposed to look for certain kinds of actions and activities of the game to happen. To this respect, Joo-sung’s explanations of the move are also instructions for how the area around the grid should be seen. This interaction between Joo-sung and Ning underscores how participation and close observation of public demonstrations leads to children’s learning and understanding of new rules. Joo-sung’s reference and objection to Ning’s move make visible for all the players the rules under which they are operating in the game. The players accomplish abstract explanations of rules by deploying forms of multimodality (Goodwin, M. H., Goodwin, C., & Yaeger-Dror, 2002) constituted through the deft interweaving of sign systems and material artifacts in the environment: a) talk, b) their bodies, and c) the hopscotch grid. 4.3 Peer Talk and Language Learning Participation in the social activities of the peer group, such as a game of hopscotch, also has important implications for language learning among NNS children. To this regard, many of the characteristics that facilitate language learning in play contexts are present in hopscotch (Ervin-Tripp, 1986). In particular, the highly contextualized and repetitive nature of the interactions not only aids children’s understanding, but also their language production. There are two pervasive strategies that these children employ to learn language from one another: repetition and format tying. Repetition, or novices copying models from other novices or from experts has been described in the literature as a common strategy immigrant children use on their path toward developing communicative competence (Ervin-Tripp, 1986; Pallotti, 2001; Fillmore, 1976). In this regard, three major functions of repetition have been identified in the literature: joining other speakers, participating in an on-going conversation, and ensuring that the children are doing the right thing at the right time (Ochs-Keenan, 1977; Pallotti, 2001). As in these studies, the importance of repetition for the development of pragmatic competence is underscored in the present study by observing the range of communicative activities that the children accomplish by means of repetition: (4) To show agreement with the assessment of other players: Maja: =YES YES Ning: Yes Jaime: Out! (.) You’re out.

68


Joo-sung:

Out!

(5) To offer counter-claims in a dispute: Nazarine: You’re crazy! Ning: You: shut up! Nazarine: Shut up! Ning: Shut up! Nazarine: You shut up! Ning: Sh-shut up. (6) To engage in joking mimicry of a previous joke: Ning: ((smiling)) Ok, ok, ok. Number six, number six. ((looking at the grid)) where is six? Joo-sung: hahahaha Where is number six? Number number six six In addition to the three previously discussed functions of repetition, it is also important to point out that, by repeating the words of a previous speaker, the children are not only ensuring that they are participating in a sequentially relevant and appropriate manner in an on-going interaction, but also showing that they understand the previous turn and that they recognize the action the prior speaker’s turn intended to implement. By repeating, they are responsive, not only to the words, but to the action and stance of the prior speaker. Although format tying, or the repetition of part of the prior speaker’s turn with additions or slight transformations, has been previously analyzed in the context of native-speaker children’s arguing (Goodwin, 1990), format tying has also important implications for NNS children’s language learning and effective participation. Tabors (1997) in her ethnographic account of language development among immigrant children in a U.S. nursery school has described how children build novel utterances by taking prior speakers’ sentences and adding material at the end of the sentence. During this game, children make extensive use of format tying by building novel utterances on the materials that are already present in the preceding discourse. In particular, they use the syntactic structure of the prior speaker’s turn as a template for their own utterances; this underscores NNS children’s ability to analyze the structure of the language: (7) Subject Pronoun + Copula Be + Verb-ing Joo-sung: Five. YES! ((Making a fist with his right arm in triumph)). Jaime: You go number FOU:R Joo-sung: ((Turning from the grid and looking directly to Jaime)) Uh uh – finish Jaime: You’re cheating Maja: [He’s not cheating. Everybody not cheater. (8) Subject pronoun + Verb Do + Like + This Maja: ((quickly approaches the grid and points to where Jaime’s feet had been)) NO! He does like this= ((reenacts Jaime’s violation on the grid)) Nazarine: ((joins Joo-sung and Maja on the grid)) Jaime! You do like this ((jumps on the line that Jaime had stepped on)).

69


(9) Subject Pronoun + Verb Go + Like + This Joo-sung: Ah! ((finishing the round)) YES Maja: ((holds on to Joo-sung)) NO! NO! ((goes inside the grid and repeats Joo-sung’s steps)) He goes like this and like this. Joo-sung: ((repeats his own steps again)) I go like THIS.

(10) Demonstrative Pronoun + Copula Be + Possessive Pronoun Jaime: ((jumps inside number 2, which is Ning’s house)) This is mine= Maja: =this is mine Joo-sung: That’s not yours. These examples show how syntactic structures “emerge for and from the interaction” (Pallotti, 1996) and how, in learning how to participate effectively, children may acquire these syntactic structures. Although the interactionist literature in SLA has often put forward the concern that the pragmatic success achieved by non-native speakers through the use of these strategies may remove the need for the acquisition and development of morphological features (See Ellis, 1999), the previous data segments seem to undermine this concern. 5. Conclusions This research underscores the importance of immigrant NNS children’s interactional and linguistic practices in the context of their peer groups, and how these practices may contribute to larger developmental processes of socialization into a second language and culture. Even with limited knowledge of a second language, immigrant children display their ability to socialize and learn from one another. In this sense, I have analyzed how, in the course of solving the disputes that rule violations engender, children construct strong oppositional stances to others’ violations that regulate appropriate social conduct during the game. The rules of social conduct co-constructed by the children in the resolution of these disputes constitute instances of socialization into local notions of fair play and respectful treatment of others. Moreover, these strong oppositional stances provide opportunities for children to socialize each other into how to express strong disagreement and may have important implications for the acquisition of reasoning and rhetorical skills. I have also investigated how children with different levels of expertise in the game learn from one another through intent participation and through the simultaneous deployment of multiple communicative resources: a) directives, b) deictic pronouns, c) gaze and body positioning, d) gestures, e) the hopscotch grid, and f) embodied demonstrations. In this sense, I have argued that these communicative practices along with the horizontal organization of participation in their learning environment facilitate the development of shared understandings of rules and the emergence of intersubjectivity or perspective-taking. Finally, I have examined how children use linguistic strategies, such as repetition and format tying, as well as non-linguistic strategies, such as reliance on routinized contexts, as tools to achieve effective participation in joint social activity and to socialize one another into communicative competence.

References

70


Blum-Kulka, S., & Snow, C. (2004). The potential for peer talk. Discourse Studies, 6, 291-306. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978) Universals of language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.) Questions and politeness strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-311). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corsaro, W. A. (2000). Early childhood education, children’s peer cultures, and the future of childhood. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 8(2), 89—102. Corsaro, W. A. (1994). Discussion, debate, and friendship processes: Peer discourse in U.S. and Italian nursery schools. Sociology of Education, 67, 1-26. Corsaro, W. A. (1988). Routines in the peer cultures of American and Italian nursery school children. Sociology of Education, 61, 1-14. Corsaro, W. A. (1979). Young children’s conception of status and role. Sociology of Education, 52, 46-59. Ellis, R. (1999). Input and interaction and second language acquisition. In The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1986). Activity structure as scaffolding for children’s second language learning. In J. Cook-Gumperz, W. A. Corsaro, & J. Streeck (Eds.), Children’s worlds and children’s language (pp. 327-357). New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Fillmore, L. W. (1976). The second time around: Cognitive and social strategies in second language acquisition. PhD dissertation. Stanford University. Garret, P.B., & Baquedano-López, P. (2002). Language socialization: Reproduction and continuity, transformation and change. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 339361. Goffman, E. (1981). Footing. In E. Goffman (Ed.) Forms of talk (pp. 124-159). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Goodwin, M. H. (1998). Games of stance: conflict and footing in hopscotch. In S. Hoyle and C. T. Adger (Eds.), Kids' talk: Strategic language use in later childhood (pp. 23-46). New York: Oxford University Press. Goodwin, M. H. (1997). Children’s linguistic and social worlds. Anthropology Newsletter 38 (4). Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said. Talk as social organization among Black children. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Goodwin, M. H., Goodwin, C., and Yaeger-Dror, M. (2002). Multi-modality in girls’ game disputes. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1621-1649. Hutchby, I., & Moran-Ellis, J. (1998). Situating children’s competence. In I. Hutchby and J. Moran-Ellis (Eds.), Children and social competence: Arenas of action (pp.7-25). London: The Falmer Press. Hymes, D. (1967). Models of the interaction of language and social setting. Journal of Social Issues, 23(2), 8-28. Kulick, D., & Schieffelin, B. B. (2004). Language socialization. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 349-368). Oxford: Blackwell. Kyratzis, A. (2004). Talk and interaction among children and the co-construction of peer groups and peer cultures. The Annual Review of Anthropology, 33, 625-649. Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic Press. Ochs, E. (2002). Becoming a speaker of culture. In C. Kramsch (Ed.) Language socialization and language acquisition: ecological perspectives (pp. 99-120). New York: Continuum Press.

71


Ochs-Keenan, E. (1977). Making it last: Uses of repetition in children’s discourse. In S. Ervin-Tripp and C. Mitchell-Kernan (Eds.), Child discourse (pp. 125-138). New York: Academic Press. Pallotti, G. (2001). External appropriations as a strategy for participating in intercultural multi-party conversations. In A. Di Luzio, & F. Orletti (Eds.), Language, culture, and interaction (pp. 295-334). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pallotti, G. (1996). Towards an ecology of second language acquisition: SLA as a socialization process. In E. Kellerman, B. Weltens, & T. Bongaerts (Eds.), EUROSLA 6. A selection of papers (pp. 121-134). Amsterdam: VU University Press. Rogoff, B., Paradise, R., Mejía Arauz, R., Correa-Chávez, M., Angelillo, C. (2003). First hand learning through intent participation. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 175-203. Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In W. Damon, D. Kuhn & R.S. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 2: Cognition, Perception, and Language (pp. 679-744). New York: Wiley. Schieffelin, B.B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. The Annual Review of Anthropology, 15, 163-191. Tabors, P. (1997) One child. Two languages: A guide for pre-school educators of children learning English as a second language. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In Wertsch, J. (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144-188). Armonk, N. Y. : M. E. Sharpe. Wertsch, J. (1991). A Sociocultural approach to socially shared cognition. In L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 85-100). Washington, D.C.: APA. Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL. University of California, Los Angeles 3300 Rolfe Hall. P.O. Box 951531 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1531 [email protected]