Multimodal Communication in an Early Childhood Bilingual Education Setting: A Social Semiotic Interaction Analysis

Abstract

Bilingual learners often integrate semiotic resources and communicative modes across the languages they speak. Unfortunately, current approaches to researching such a phenomenon assign pragmatic functions to individual discourse moves at best or to isolated utterances at worst. Thus, using a social semiotic multimodal interaction analysis, this study examined actions in interac­tions of a group of six transnational students participating in a second-grade literacy circle at a school in western New York, USA. The purpose of this was to account for the complex reciprocities among their multimodal ways of communicating, their learning climate, and ultimately their learning as mediated and evidenced in their integrated multimodal communicative action. Data included four audio recordings of four literacy circle reading activities that took place during a four-day period. Findings sug­gest that, first, learning results from communication. Second, learning can only be evidenced through communication in interaction. Finally, communication is always multimodal and emergent while, at the same time, culturally governed. This presents direct implications for instruction and learning regarding the social conditions afforded to students to access their full repertoire of semiotic resourc­es and modes to participate and act on their own behalf and in pursuit of their learning.

Student’s agency in English as Foreign Language learning in a Virtual Environment: An Interaction Analysis

“…A teacher's approach to instruction highly regulates the type of communication that students could experience in their learning environment as well as the possibilities afforded to them to find and resort to a broader repertoire of semiotic resources and communicative modes in pursuit of their learning (Aukerman et al, 2017;Escobar-Alméciga, 2020;Escobar-Alméciga & Brutt-Griffler, 2022). In the case of our sixth-semester group, the teacher promoted students' participation presenting class contents in a multiplicity of ways and stimulating conversations.…”

“…Considering that learning is only made possible by the communicative action that students are able to exert in classroom interaction, it is imperative to gain greater understandings about the social climate for learning and to make room for the design of communicative environments in our instructional designs (Escobar-Alméciga, 2020;Escobar-Alméciga & Brutt-Griffler, 2022). That is, instruction should be embedded within a communicative framework that empowers students to act on their benefit, in pursuit of their social interests and learning (agency).…”

“…However, student involvement and agency in this endeavor are greatly influenced by the teacher's discourse. Students' capacity to act independently and learn effectively can either be facilitated or hindered by the teacher's words and deeds, as well as the discourses, attitudes, and behaviors encouraged in the classroom (Aukerman et al, 2017;Escobar-Alméciga, 2020, 2022Escobar-Alméciga & Brutt-Griffler, 2022). To promote student investment, instruction should prioritize the creation of safe, welcoming, and engaging communicative environments in which students feel free and empowered to express their ideas, emotions, and identities (Bourdieu, 1991;Brown, 2014;Darvin & Norton, 2015;Escobar-Alméciga & Brutt-Griffler, 2022).…”

“…Escobar-Alméciga (2020, p. 89) In this regard, Norris (2004) asserts that the collective processes of meaning making in interaction relies on-beyond speech-a multiplicity of modes. As such, this first analysis sought to examine the semiotic resources that the class participants employed and the modes in which they deployed them in their interactions (Escobar-Alméciga, 2020;Escobar-Alméciga & Brutt-Griffler, 2022). It also accounts for the prosodic elements of spoken language like emphasis, pauses, and silences using the method of narrow transcription proposed by Norris (2004) as follows: Note.…”

“…This transition to virtual-mediated instruction and the affordances and limitations for communication therein has direct implications for social interaction, student engagement, and agency and hence, for learning (Bird et al, 2021;Escobar-Almégica, 2020;Escobar-Alméciga & Brutt-Griffler, 2022;Mahyoob, 2020;Norton, 2013). This underscores the need for an evaluation of such virtual-mediated conditions for learning given that learning results from the negotiation of meaning and the construction of knowledge in social 2020; Escobar-Almeciga & Brutt-Griffler, 2022;Fairclough, 2011;Norris, 2004). In this sense, communication is at the heart of human life as it forms and transforms personal and collective views, beliefs and idiosyncrasies that frame and re-frame realities in different domains of social interaction (Escobar-Alméciga, 2020).…”