English language learning in multimodal environments among

Finnish Sign Language people

Eurocall 2011, NottinghamElina Tapio

Who am I?

•sign language interpreter•PhD studies – Uni. of Oulu•teaching at the

Sign Language CentreDept. of Languages University of

Jyväskylä

• Research topic and questions• Mediated Discourse Analysis & Nexus Analysis• Case 1: Informal meets formal• Case 2: Fingerspelling of English words in

Finnish Sign Language (FinSL) context• Some thoughts on research methodology

Outline

Research topic

The English language in the everyday life of Finnish Sign Language people – a multimodal perspective into interaction

What do people do?

Indigenous practices of the Deaf community

Research questions

• Where and when do the Deaf encounter English language?

• What kind of voluntary (social) actions take place in everyday life?

• Which resources do the Deaf use for their English learning?

• What could we learn from voluntary action in formal education?

SOCIAL ACTION

Mediated Discourse Analysis - MDA

Scollon 2001; Scollon & Scollon 2004

recognition & identification

navigating

mapping, circumferencing

Discourse analysis

mediated action

changing

activism & change

engaging

Three phases of Nexus Analysis

Scollon & Scollon 2004; Jones & Norris 2005; Hammersley & Atkinson 1995

Nexus Analysis, from engaging to navigating

Navigating

Variety of methods

… ethnography, discourse analysis, interaction analysis, social semiotics, …

multimodal interaction analysis

multimodal discourse analysis, virtual ethnography

sign language phonetics

e.g. Norris 2004; Kress & Van Leeuwen 1996

A VIDEO CLIP MISSING

Language learning

• Socio-cultural & ecological view multimodality, interaction, everyday action(also: indigenous practices)

• Social-interactional and descriptive• Looking at complex situations through many lenses,

strengthened by ethnographic data and triangulation

Kramsch 2002; Van Lier 2004, 2000; Firth & Wagner 2007; Wilcox 2004

Engaging the nexus of practice

English in face-to-face interaction (Case 2) Media and technology in the everyday life (Case 1)

Case 1: Informal meets formal

10:48 Maria > moi10:48 Ronja > yes i know ;)10:48 Suvi > marzu!!! you must write english!10:49 Maria > ok, hello!10:49 Suvi > Do you love JP, ronja?? :D10:49 Jukka-Pekka > Hi! i m JP.10:49 Ronja > so just, marzu, your must to write english :P10:49 Suvi > Good marzu!10:49 Maria > ;P

10:54 Maria > shcool is shit!10:54 Suvi > :O MARZU, SSHHH10:55 Ronja > marzu, you cannot say ugly word!10:55 Maria > XD

10:55 Suvi > Blääh!! I want go to camfrog... There is better..!10:55 Ronja > :P:P:P:P tommi, finish ready10:55 Ronja > yeah, so just.. but i d want go to msn!!!10:56 Anu > i want go sleeping...10:56 Suvi > MSN! haha I have msn here!! x)10:56 Ronja > heh, i want too :D10:56 Tommi > jaa

• use of smileys• nicknames• greeting and acknowledging• prosody in typing• correcting typos and mistakes• hitting random keys• topics of conversation

• Focus on (the) language• Affordances: meaning potential in other messages

recycling• Working as a group, quick reactions, overlap,

pushing others to join• Chat language a hybrid access to varieties, access to spoken

variations

Language learning taking place?

10:48 Suvi > Do you know that we are very MAD and BAD??? :D 10:51 Anu > mi don t know..

• Playing with the language & humour

HISTORICAL BODY

DISCOURSES IN PLACE

INTERACTION ORDER

AFFORDANCES AGENCY

EMPOWERMENT CHANGING THE NEXUS OF PRACTICE

Change in the social action

SOCIAL ACTION

recognition & identification

navigating

mapping, circumferencing

Discourse analysis

mediated action

changing

activism & change

engaging

The social action of fingerspelling English words under closer analysis

Navigating the nexus of practice

[‘lӕŋgwidʒ]

spoken written

language

Fingerspelling an English word

in FinSL context

[laŋguage]

signed (fingerspelled)

mouthing

A VIDEO CLIP MISSING

Examining the fingerspelling of an English word as social actiona holistic view of interaction

What happens when fingerspelling an English word?What is the multimodal nature of

fingerspelling?Other communicative modes used? Why?How is fingerspelling modified in a

communicative situation?

Case 2: Fingerspelling English words in FinSL context

T-H-E A-V-I-A-T-O-R

Multimodal density

•Modes via different media overlap and are on offer for the actors• Modes selected and modified • From careful fingerspelling to letter-by-letter fingerspelling

T-H-E A-V-I-A-T-O-R

K-I-T-A-R, G-I-T-A-R, G-U-I-T-A-R

The interplay of different modes:• typing• signing• fingerspelling• mouthing

Adapting cultural tools to the constraints/opportunities of the place and technology. (Keating 2005; Keating & Mirus 2003)

• Changes in speed• Changes in co-modes• Changes in the phonetic structure Practices in the community

Different ways of fingerspelling

• Resemiotization: It is very typical to have English emerging in many different ways and modal combinations

• Chaining: writing – signing – fingerspelling – pointing – (e.g. Bagga-Gupta 2004, Padden 2003), i.e. chain of mediated actions

• “Blindness to English” awareness• Language seen in and with other semiotic resources (Kramsch

2002)• “(--) the ability to rapidly call upon alternative structures from a

larger, ready at hand tool kit of diverse semiotic resources, is crucial to the ability of human beings to (--) show that they are aware of each other and of the situation” Goodwin (2000: 1700).

To sum up…

Finding answers with MDA?

• “The insiders view” enhanced with the researcher’s analytical eye

• Triangulation is essential!

For the future: • Looking at fingerspelling with large, multilingual data• Defining the nexus of practice• Other visual and embodied practices with English

language?

Challenges and opportunities:• The amount and data multimethod approach• Ethnography creates uncertainty

Some sourcesBagga-Gupta, S. 2004. Visually oriented language use: Discursive and technological resources in Swedish Deaf pedagogical arenas. In Van Herreweghe, M. & Vermeerbergen, M. (eds.) To the lexicon and beyond. Sociolinguistics in European deaf communities. Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University Press. 171 – 207.Gee, J.P. 2008. Learning and Games. In Salen, K. (ed.) The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. 21 – 40. Goodwin, C. 2000. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 1489 – 1522.Gutiérrez, K.D. Baquedano- López, Tejeda, C. 1999. Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. In Mind,culture, and activity, 6(4), 286 – 303.Hammersley, M & Atkinson, P. 1995. Ethnography. New York: Routledge.Herring, S. C. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internet.http://www.languageatinternet.de/articles/2007/761 Accessed 10.11.2010.Jewitt, C. 2008. Multimodal discourses acroos the curriculum. In Martin-Jones, M. et al. (eds.) Encyclopedia of language and education, 2ndedition, Volume 3, Discourse and Education, 357 –367.Jordan, B. and Henderson, A. 1994. 'Interaction Analysis: Foundations and Practice', The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 4: 39 – 101.Journal of Pragmatics 41. 2009. 1879 – 1886. Kramsch, C. (ed.) 2002. Language acquisition and language socialization. Ecological perspectives. London: Continuum.Kress, G. 2000. Multimodality. In B. Cope and M. Kalantzis (eds.) Multiliteracies : literacy learning and the design of social futures. London:Routledge. 182 – 202.Kress, G. & Van Leeuwen, T. 2001. Multimodal Discourse. The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold.Leppänen, S., Nikula, T. & Kääntä, L. 2008. Kolmas kotimainen. Lähikuvia englannin käytöstä Suomessa. Helsinki: Suomalaisen KirjallisuudenSeura.Levine, P. & Scollon, R. (eds.) 2004. Discourse & technology. Multimodal discourse analysis. Washington, D.C. : Georgetown university press.Norris, S. 2002. The Implication of Visual Research for Discourse Analysis: Transcription beyond Language. Visual Communication 1:1, 97 –121.Norris, S. 2004. Analyzing Multimodal Interaction: A Methodological Framework. London: Routledge.Norris, S. & Jones, R. H. 2005. Discourse in Action: Introducing Mediated Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.Padden, C.A. & Gunsauls, D.C. 2003. How the Alphabet Came to Be Used in a Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, vol 4, nro 1, 10—33.Patrie, C. J. & Johnson, R.E. 2011. Fingerspelled word recognition through rapid serial visual presentation. San Diego: DawnSignPress.Scollon, R. 2001. Mediated Discourse. The Nexus of Practice. London: Routledge.Rampton, B. 2002. Ritual and foreign language practice at school. In Language in Society 31, 491 -525.Scollon, R. & Scollon, S.W. 2004. Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet. London: Routledge.Tapio, E. The English language in the everyday life of Finnish Sign Language users – a multimodal perspective into interaction. PhD Thesis. Inprogress.Van Lier, L. 2008. Agency in the classroom. In Lantolf, J.P. & Poehner, M.E. (eds.) Sociocultural theory and the teching of second language.163 – 186.Van Lier, L. 2004. The ecology and semiotics of language learning. A sociocultural perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Van Lier, L. 2000. From input to affordance: social-interactive olearning from an ecological perspective. In Lantolf, J.P. (ed.) Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: OUP.Wilcox, S. 2004. Struggling for a Voice: An Interactionist View of Language and Literacy in Deaf Education. In Brueggemann, B. J. (ed.) Literacy and Deaf People.Cultural and Contextual Perspectives. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press. 157 – 191.