“I Learn More at School”: A Critical Perspective on Workplace-Related Second Language Learning In and Out of School

‘‘I Learn More at School’’: A Critical Perspective on Workplace-Related Second Language Learning In and Out of SchoolKARIN SANDWALLUniversity of Gothenburg Gothenburg, Sweden This articl

‘‘I Learn More at School’’: A Critical Perspective on Workplace-Related Second Language Learning In and Out of SchoolKARIN SANDWALL

University of Gothenburg

Gothenburg, Sweden

This article presents a case study of a student involved in language learning

at a work placement, as part of the basic Swedish language programme foradult immigrants, Svenska fo¨r invandrare (Sfi), in Gothenburg, Sweden

In accordance with the predominant economic agenda, this system isassumed to accelerate labour market entrance as well as languageacquisition for the newcomer The article describes some macrolevelaspects important for the outcome of the work placement and discussessome tensions in the system, before exploring an ecological frameworkand the concept of affordances as a tool for analysing the agents’ situatedinteractions at the work placement The analysis shows that affordancesoffered by the environment at the work placement were explored asmeaning-making material and as action potentials but not as learningopportunities, because the student’s activities were limited to tasks and shehad insufficient support for evaluating her work placement interactions.The article suggests some basic ecological principles for the reframing ofthe Sfi programme, built on affordance-focusing tasks that enable students

to learn from discourse practices that they come across at workplaces andother out-of-classroom contexts

doi: 10.5054/tq.2010.229270

T his article presents a case study of a student involved in languagelearning at a work placement as part of the basic Swedish languageprogramme for adult immigrants, Svenska fo¨ r invandrare (Sfi), inGothenburg, Sweden

Regardless of their party affiliation, policymakers in Gothenburgshare the assumption that the introduction of a curriculum includingpractical work placements for students within Sfi facilitates rapid labourmarket entrance as well as language acquisition for the newcomer.However, as the quote in the title of this article suggests, this is anassumption that might be challenged, judging from the experiences ofthis student The student’s experiences also highlight the need todiscuss assumptions about language learning at work placements inrelation to the student’s trajectory and the workplace on offer

In an attempt to account for the student’s interactions and learningopportunities in such workplace contexts, I have chosen an ecologicalapproach proposed by van Lier and other scholars (Kramsch, 2002; vanLier, 2002, 2004, 2007), because this approach enables a focus on theways in which individuals use language and other sign systems to relate

to each other and the social world When perceived by the individual,these relations—or affordances, a concept introduced by Gibson (1979)and developed by van Lier (2002, 2004)—can be explored as action andlearning potentials, guiding the individual’s further interactions.The same theoretical framework is also used to outline some of thebasic principles for a proposed reframing of the Sfi programme, whereBaynham’s (2006) idea of bringing the outside in can be used as a point

of departure In my view, there is an urgent need for teachers andlearners to develop a deeper understanding of the situated character oflanguage practices in different workplaces and other informal settings

In this article I suggest the concept of affordance as a way of guidingteachers’ thinking and acting when selecting what to bring in and how todraw on students’ outside experiences in the classroom in order toenable them to learn from the discourse practices they come across inworkplaces and other contexts outside of the classroom

Before presenting the case study, some macrolevel aspects importantfor the outcome of the work placement are addressed

THE SFI PROGRAMME

The Sfi programme commenced nearly 50 years ago (see Lindberg &Sandwall, 2007), and in 2007–2008, 74,000 students—the highest number

of participants ever—were enrolled in the programme (Swedish NationalAgency for Education, 2008)

The Sfi programme is state funded, but it is the responsibility of theseparate municipalities to provide Sfi as part of the municipal adulteducation programme or to commission private providers The programmeensures adult Swedish immigrants the right to free basic language tuition up

to a level corresponding to level B1, as described in the Common EuropeanFramework of Reference (Council of Europe, 2001).1

1 The Common European Framework provides a common basis for the elaboration of language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, examinations, textbooks, etc., across Europe It describes what language learners have to learn to do in order to use a language for communication and what knowledge and skills they have to develop so as to be able to act effectively The description also covers the cultural context in which language is set and defines levels of proficiency which allow learners’ progress to be measured at each stage of learning and on a life-long basis The framework outlines six broad levels, starting from a division into the three broad levels A–C: A, basic user (A1, breakthrough; A2, waystage); B, independent user (B1, threshold; B2, vantage); and C, proficient user (C1, effective operational proficiency; C2, mastery; Council of Europe, 2001).

The Swedish national integration policy and the Sfi programmeshare the main goal of ‘‘active participation in society.’’ The goal of theSfi programme, as presented in the Sfi syllabus, is to provide studentswith linguistic tools for communication and active participation ineveryday situations in society and in their working lives (SwedishNational Agency for Education, 2009) The syllabus explicitly emphasisesthe importance of learner-centred instruction, the need to plan anddesign the education together with the students according to thestudents’ interests, experiences, general knowledge, and long-term goals(Swedish National Agency for Education, 2009) The programme should

be flexible and organised so as to facilitate the combination of Sfi studiesand employment, practical work placement, or other education Allsyllabuses within the official Swedish educational system—including theSfi syllabus—are criterion referenced and without any direct specifica-tions of content or methods

The effectiveness, role, and responsibility of Sfi as a languageprogramme have been an issue of constant debate for many years(Lindberg & Sandwall, 2007) Currently, the Swedish rightwing–liberalcoalition, in power since 2006, is adopting an economic agenda focusing

on increasing overall employment With this current agenda and thepredominant labour strategy, the importance of an increasingly efficientSfi programme is argued as the main requirement for immigrants’ rapidself-support Hence the focus is on the responsibility—or inability—ofthe programme to prepare for, or even procure immediate employmentfor the students To improve the quality of Sfi as a labour-marketinstrument, the present government has presented measures to increaseeffective study habits and the programme’s student completion rate(Dagens Nyheter, 2008) Measures taken are in accordance with thegovernment’s general educational policy and include state-mandatedaccountability tests, an extended national inspection system, and anational evaluation of Sfi Reducing the time spent in Sfi is another goal,and therefore a time limit of 3 years of enrolment in Sfi has beenproposed The latest initiative of this kind is the introduction of a pilotscheme concerning an individual performance-based incentive, the so-called Sfi bonus (Government Proposition, 2009), ensuring successfulstudents financial compensation for finishing their Sfi programmewithin a certain period As part of this initiative, a new curriculum waslaunched in January 2009—the third in a period of 5 years—together

2 The overall objectives of integration policy are equal rights, responsibilities and obligations for all regardless of ethnic or cultural background; a social community based on diversity; and social development characterised by mutual respect for differences within the boundaries that follow from society’s fundamental democratic values in which everyone, irrespective of background, should take an active and responsible part (see also Ministry of Integration and Gender Equality, 2009).

with increased funding for short in-service training courses for Sfiteachers.

Throughout the history of Sfi, the programme has lacked long-termmeasures for securing teacher training based on solid second languageresearch (Lindberg & Sandwall, 2007; Swedish National Agency, 1997),resulting in damage to the status and reputation of the education as well asallowing for short-term measurements according to an economic agenda asdescribed earlier These top-down measures have been imposed due to Sfi’shistorically representing low-status activity, to alleged inefficiency, and tolack of any significant impact, so far, on the results of Sfi (Swedish NationalAgency for Education, 1997; official statistics from the Swedish NationalAgency for Education from 1993 to 2008)

The Sfi Programme in Gothenburg

In Gothenburg, the second largest city in Sweden, a broad politicalconsensus for the economic agenda is manifested in a system ofshort-term tendering, where various private providers are responsible forthe tuition of 85% of the 6,000 Sfi students in the city

The consensus also includes the so-called ‘‘labour strategy’’ in relation

to Sfi, and a local additional goal of the municipality states that Sfi must

‘‘as quickly as possible give the newcomer the prerequisites to procure ajob and to subsequently gain self-support’’ (Public Administration ofAdult Education, 2007a) Hence, in municipal evaluations of Sfi, animportant measure of the programme’s success is the number of Sfistudents who have procured jobs as a direct result of participation in theprogramme In line with the national political discourse, the biggerpolitical parties in Gothenburg share the criticism that ‘‘the extent towhich the Sfi programme leads to gainful employment and self-support

is too limited’’ (the City Office of Gothenburg, 2006)

Responding to this critique, the Public Administration of AdultEducation office has for some years requested providers to organiselanguage education with a focus on different areas of the employmentsector, including practical work placements as well as fast-track coursesfor highly educated immigrants Immigrants without a clear professionalgoal are enrolled in a general Sfi programme Since 2006, practical workplacements are also part of the general Sfi programme, and organisa-tions which have successfully bid are now urged to find relevant workplacements as well as to integrate learning in and out of school, byintegrating students’ experiences from work placements into thecurriculum (Public Administration of Adult Education, 2007b) Thisrequires teachers to apply teaching methods for which they seldom haveprevious knowledge

It is the responsibility of the so-called coaches to find placements thatoffer learners ‘‘continuous opportunities for communication in Swedishthat lead to language acquisition’’ (Public Administration of AdultEducation, 2007b) and that relate to the student’s previous experiencesand future goals The coaches, who are employed by the provider andsometimes also work as language teachers, are obliged to keep in contactwith teachers, students and the mentor at the work placements.

The system of competitive, short-term public procurement and theview of Sfi as first and foremost a labour market instrument have severalimplications A positive one is the initiation of rewarding pedagogicaldiscussions built on practices and experiences of different providers inrelation to what constitutes relevant content and methods for work-related language training There are, however, also conflicts of interestinherent in the system, which need to be recognized and negotiated Inpractice, coaches and teachers have to make compromises weighing Sfisyllabus goals and students’ needs and long-term goals against theproviders’ interests in showing good results in terms of number ofstudents at work placements and in employment With lower numbers ofstudents in placements, the providers’ credibility is diminished when thenext bid for tender is due In times of teachers’ unstable workingconditions, the choice between a placement that might lead to a studentgaining employment of any kind and one where language development

is favoured is not always easy (my own data from interviews with schooladministrators, teachers, and coaches)

In addition, there are financial grounds for finding work placementsfor students as soon as possible, because each hour of attendance atwork placements is reimbursed However, with the students’ low secondlanguage proficiency, the type of placements primarily available to themare relatively low status jobs where few qualifications are required.Considerations, such as those referred to earlier, contribute to the factthat teachers and coaches very rarely openly criticise the system and to thevery limited cooperation and exchange of ideas between providers (my owndata from interviews with school administrators, teachers and coaches)

In light of these potential conflicts, there is a risk that the GothenburgSfi programme, through the system of practical work placements, is used

as a sorting instrument for the labour market, introducing immigrants tolow-paid positions, whatever their educational background or previouswork experience (Cooke, 2006, p 70)

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

There are a broad range of relevant studies that analyse theinteraction of second language learners in work placements as part of

second language programmes These include studies of linguistic aspects

of workplace communication, interpretation of signs other thanlanguage in ongoing interactions, as well as issues of power, agency,identity, and face The following section presents a brief overview ofsome earlier research relevant to the present study and an account forthe ecological approach applied as an overall theoretical framework forthe study

The view of Sfi as predominantly a labour market instrument is oftenlinked to a very limited view of vocational Swedish as the specificvocabulary needed for the accomplishment of isolated work-relatedtasks This view is in sharp contrast to the multifaceted languagedemands of today’s workplaces, as confirmed in recent research (seeBurns, 2006; Cooke, 2006; Holmes & Stubbe, 2003; Karlsson, 2006;Roberts, 2004; Sarangi & Roberts, 1999; Søgaard Sørensen & Holmen,2004)

Moreover, several studies have shown the importance of a sharedunderstanding of the context and activity to enable individuals tointerpret and act accordingly (see, e.g., Garfinkel, 1967; Goffman,1981; Goodwin, 2000; Kendon, 1992) To reach such understanding,participants also draw on their perception and recognition of contextand of other signs than languages Recent research shows the complexinteraction of speech with gestures, bodily orientation, and the use ofobjects, including how gestures can add meaning or specify themeaning of what is said (see, e.g., Atkinson, Churchill, Nishino, &Okada, 2007; Goodwin, 2000, 2007; Kendon, 1992, 2000; McNeill,2000; Olsher, 2004; Thibault, 2004).3 The shared knowledge ofprocedure and practice is also highlighted by Young (2007), who usedthe concept of interactional competence to refer to the competence co-constructed by participants in a particular discursive practice, therebyemphasising the reciprocity of and mutual responsibility for theinteraction

From another perspective, Lave and Wenger (1991) and Wenger(1998), within their theory of situated learning based on legitimateperipheral participation, drew attention to the role of context for theunderstanding of language and learning Here, learning is viewed ascontingent on social interactions within communities of practice and as

a process of participation in which the novice gradually becomes a full,legitimate member of the community through the scaffolding ofmentors and experts Lave and Wenger contributed significantly to theunderstanding of learning as a situated process, and as contributions inBarton and Tusting (2005) have shown, applications of theories

3 For an overview and discussion on the role of gesture used in communicative competence, see Gregersen, Olivares-Cuhat, and Storm (2009).

concerning literacy and discourse practices, of issues of power and of abroader social context, may further understandings of the processestaking place.

Structural and institutional factors may affect the learning of adultsecond language students, despite high levels of motivation, investment,and individual agency (Cooke, 2006; Norton 2000, 2001; Norton Peirce,1995) As Norton (2001) showed, such experiences may causefrustration in students and interfere with their present or future lifechances, as well as with their language learning Hence Baynham (2006)argued for the need to bring the outside into the second languageclassroom, thus allowing for an open-ended, ‘‘dynamic, agentive andcontingent classroom environment’’ (p 38) In line with a criticalapproach to second language teaching (e.g., Norton & Toohey, 2004),such pedagogy allows for students to take advantage of the apprentice-ship associated with the comparatively sheltered learning environment

to engage in empowering discussions on challenging experiences andencounters in the outside world

Thus, when discussing immigrants’ opportunities for learning asecond language at work, it is necessary to take issues of student identityand investment, as well as aspects of basic language education and ofworkplaces, into consideration (Lund & Svendsen Pedersen, 2006;Svendsen Pedersen, 2007) These Danish researchers also emphasizedthat problems related to segregation and other shortcomings of socialintegration policies can never be compensated for by basic languageeducation

Studies like the ones mentioned earlier have in many wayscontributed to our understanding of the complex situated nature ofworkplace interactions Other studies have explored the situatedlearning perspective in analyses of second language classroom interac-tions and learning (e.g., DaSilva Iddings & Jang, 2008; van Lier, 2007;Vickers, 2007; Young & Miller, 2004) Until now, however, not manystudies have addressed the relationship between formal tuition and theoutside world, with the question of bringing the outside in—and theinside out Moreover, few studies have actually explored the challenges

of immigrants who, while still taking part in basic second languagetuition, find themselves forced to communicate and interact at a workplacement

An Ecological Approach

Second language studies have gradually shifted from a focus onlanguage in isolation from the context in which it is practised to a view ofenvironment as a ‘‘critical mediating force’’ in interactions, learning,

and teaching (Canaragajah, 2008, p 537) This also involves a shift ofinterest from linguistic inputs and mental processing to what learnersactually do when engaged in meaningful language activity (van Lier,

2007, p 46)

An ecological approach to language, learning, and teaching is not anoverarching theory, but rather a metaphor or ‘‘a way of thinking aboutteaching and learning in all its complexity, a way of looking at language

as a tool of many uses, and as a key component of all human making activity’’ (van Lier, 2004, p 224) It draws from several othertheoretical perspectives, such as chaos and complexity theory (Larsen-Freeman, 2002), activity theory (Engestro¨m, Miettinen, & Punama¨ki,1999), sociocognitive theory (Atkinson et al., 2007), and socioculturaltheory (Lantolf, 2000) Within an ecological approach, language isviewed as emerging from a participant’s active engagement in semioticand interactional activity in a social and physical world Hence, it is notprimarily the agent’s words or phrases which count as data forinvestigation but the situated social activity

meaning-Thus, an ecological study of language focuses on ways in whichindividuals use language and other sign systems to relate to each otherand to the social world (van Lier, 2002, p 147) These relations arereferred to as affordances (Gibson, 1979; Greeno, 1994; van Lier, 2000,

2002, 2004)

When perceived of—and thus made available to—an actively engagedparticipant, affordances may promote or inhibit actions and maytherefore be thought of as cues for how to interpret signs and how toact In this way, language-in-interaction is embedded in and supported

by other meaning-making signs (gesturing, posturing, local or remoteobjects of joint attention, etc.)

Greeno (1994), when discussing Gibson’s original notion ofaffordances, noted that many affordances such as posture, gestures,gazes, facial expressions, and pauses are perceived without any need formediating symbolic representations (p 340) Such unmediated affor-dances are called first-level or direct affordances (van Lier, 2004).Mediated (indirect or second-level) affordances, on the other hand, aremediated by a variety of cognitive and social tools, for example,remembered practices and routines, situational logic, conversationallogic, and familiarity with artifacts To the individual engaged ininteraction, affordances of the direct or mediated kind make sense whenperceived together; they ‘‘act in consort to link language to actions viaperception’’ (van Lier, 2004, p 94), as in a network

Activity and also interpretation are key words here According to vanLier (2004), when engaged in activity, we perceive and interpret therelevancies signalled by the physical and social surroundings—theoffered affordances—on the basis of ‘‘what we are doing and who we

are’’ (p 62), so from the many affordances offered by the environment,individuals select ‘‘those that best fit their experience and the activity inwhich they are engaged’’ (Kramsch, 2002, p 7).

In an ecological perspective, ‘‘perception-in-action’’ (van Lier, 2007,

p 54), that is the ability to focus one’s attention on meaning-makingaffordances, is an important prerequisite for language learningopportunities to occur It is activity, perception, and interaction thatprovide key interactional and contextual resources for the under-standing and internalization of a system of linguistic and nonlinguisticsymbols and thus for the emergence of the second language Within thisperspective, learning is not about internalizing grammar or a ‘‘linguisticsystem’’—it is about internalising the ‘‘keys to acting in the world’’ (vanLier, 2007, p 55) Hence the learner’s ability to perceive affordanceswhile engaged in multimodal activity is constitutive of both interactionand learning possibilities

Within this framework then, the teaching of language is aboutsupporting the students in developing their ability to perceiveaffordances in interaction as ways of relating more effectively to peopleand to the world (van Lier, 2004, p 4)

THE STUDY

The case study presented in this article is part of a PhD project concerningsecond language learners’ possibilities to learn Swedish through participa-tion in interactions at practical work placements as part of their languageprogramme In addition to the female student in the present case study,another three students were participants in the larger study

Methods, Setting, and Participants

As indicated above, teachers and coaches in Gothenburg see theintegration of learning in and out of school as a big pedagogicalchallenge, especially for teachers working within the general Sfiprogramme By choosing to study practical work placements in relation

to the general programme, I hoped that my findings would also berelevant for other basic language programmes where specialising invarious areas of the employment sector is not feasible and where some orall students are involved in work or practical work placements for shorter

or longer periods

Inspired by research within the framework of ethnography ofcommunication (Hymes, 1972) and linguistic ethnography (Creese,2008; Rampton et al., 2004), data were collected through variousqualitative methods including the following: field notes from observations

at meetings, at work placement, and in school; course materials; 8 hours ofaudiotaped and 9 hours of videotaped interactions at the work placement;and audiotaped interviews.4

The provider, one of the larger ones in Gothenburg, was selected

on the basis of previous personal contacts with Sfi teachers andcoaches employed there Through staff contacts, a young formerstudent of economics from Serbia, Merilinka, agreed to participate inthe study.5

The choice of a preschool as the practical work placement forMerilinka can be related to several factors on both a macro and microlevel When Merilinka applied to Sfi, she had chosen, from a limitednumber of options, ‘‘child and recreation’’ as a possible area ofemployment The choice was also based on the coach’s assumption thatthe preschool would provide a language-rich context that would enableher to ‘‘start using and listening.’’ But the reason for choosing thispreschool with 15 two- to three-year-olds was also a practical one, as thecoach later admitted: ‘‘It’s a political reality, too, where we have to takethe placements that we can get.’’ That two of the preschool teachers werebilingual (in Serbian and Macedonian) didn’t influence the choice ofpreschool

The case study spanned 3 months, from mid-November, 2007, whenpreparations for the student’s work placement at the preschool began,

to mid-February, 2008, when the work placement period ended.6 Thesemistructured follow-up interviews with the student, the Swedishteachers, and the two most involved preschool teachers concerned theirperspectives on and experiences of the Sfi programme, the workplacement period, and the integration of learning The student

4 My intention was to act as a nonparticipant observer, but it soon became apparent that this approach promoted a feeling of unease with participants at the preschool Instead, I found that it was through limited and peripheral interaction (e.g., smiling and nodding, responding to questions, and occasionally commenting on events) that my presence at the preschool became more comfortable To facilitate this, and to make the video camera less conspicuous, I held the camera waist high, using the foldout screen to keep the student in focus Thus, instead of characterising the observations as either non- or full-participation, they are more accurately characterised in relation to a continuum dependent on the activity taking place.

5 After a meeting with the teachers and coaches, in which I presented my study, the team offered to recruit a student who could be interested in participating In a later meeting with the suggested student participant, Merilinka, I explained my intentions with the study and the methods for collecting data in simplified Swedish using a specially prepared wordlist in the student’s first language When the work placement had been chosen, I also contacted the head teacher and arranged for a meeting with the preschool teachers With their permission to carry out the study, and with support from the mentor, an experienced preschool teacher, I finally obtained permission from the parents of the 15 children at the school.

6 Observations and video recordings at the preschool were made in January and February, in order for the students, the preschool teachers, and the children to get acquainted before data were collected.

interview was conducted in Serbian through an interpreter Allinterviews lasted from 1 to 2 hours.

To further ensure an emic perspective, the many casual conversations

on topics relevant to the study noted during breaks and in between taskshave been included in the data, as have discussions on preliminaryfindings with the team and others at the private school and, to someextent, the student and two of the preschool teachers

Findings

In November, 2007, after approximately 100 hours of instruction,Merilinka’s Swedish competence could be described as having ‘‘a verybasic range of simple expressions about personal details and needs of aconcrete type,’’ the definition of level A1/A2 according to the CommonEuropean Framework of References scale (Council of Europe, 2001)

At an introductory meeting at the preschool, the coach (Eric),Merilinka, and her mentor (bilingual preschool teacher Biljana) agreedthat Merilinka’s time would be spent ‘‘participating in activities withinthe children’s group.’’ The purpose of the work placement was alsodiscussed at the meeting, as seen in the following excerpt from thetranscript (see Swedish original in appendix 1)

Excerpt 1 Purpose of work placement

Eric: this work placement is for language, so you’ll get to start using andlistening and

Biljana:

it’s not that you will WORK for us, it’s only to listen, to learn the language

After agreeing that learning more Swedish was the principal purpose ofthe work placement, Eric and Biljana gave Merilinka some advice abouthow she could learn Swedish at the preschool Their view on the role ofinformal learning, including the use of the shared first language(Serbian) can be summarized in the manual below, illustrated withedited quotes from the meeting

Excerpt 2 Manual for how to learn Swedish at the preschool

1 Be active and participate

Eric: you have to be ACTIVE, you can’t just stand and watch, you have toparticipate

2 Spend time with the children

Biljana: Spend time WITH the children and see what they do

Eric: feel free to play with them

Biljana: you learn language when / ./ they use it

Biljana: they use their bodies for showing what they want so you understand./ ./ they only say and then point / ./ and then they have repeated ahundred times a day and then you learn

3 Ask many questions

Eric: ask many questions!

Eric: here you have to understand, otherwise it won’t work

4 Use (almost only) Swedish

Biljana: you learn language when you use it

Biljana: I will all the time speak Swedish So sometimes in the end if I see thatisn’t working, / ./ then I will say it to you in Swedish and in Serbian

As will become apparent in the following interactions, this manualturned out to have a great impact on Merilinka’s interactions with thepreschool teachers and children and, consequently, on her ownlanguage learning opportunities

INTERACTIONS AT THE PRESCHOOL

The episodes in the following sections have been selected to display theaffordances invoked in the activities and interactions that Merilinkarepeatedly participated in Although, as will become obvious in the following,affordances act in consort and make sense when perceived together, the firstexample is chosen to focus on the use of direct affordances, whereas thesucceeding transcript excerpts primarily concern mediated affordances

The Bench Episode

The first transcript excerpt is taken from a hectic situation in thenarrow entrance hall when the preschool teachers were busy helping thechildren put on snowsuits, boots, winter hats, and mittens—it was a coldFebruary day Merilinka volunteered to dress Isac and was now trying toget him to stand still Elisabeth, a Swedish native-speaking preschoolteacher sitting on the long bench in the hall, observed Merilinkastruggling for a while before turning to her and saying:

Excerpt 3 If you sit on the bench

Elisabeth: Merilinka, if you sit on the bench over there [turns to her right,looks down at the bench], it will be easier for you when if you dress Isac[points with hand towards Isac]

Merilinka: yes Isac, come! [goes to sit down on the bench to Elisabeth’s right]

Aware of the fact that there were words and phrases in the giveninstruction unknown to Merilinka, I asked afterwards how she

immediately could recognize the speaker’s intention and act ingly Merilinka explained: ‘‘I can understand, eh, eh, what she thinking,but not exactly* what says she’’ (* word said in English).

accord-For a further discussion of the process by which Merilinka could interpretElisabeth’s intentions, however, one needs to rephrase the question inecological terms: ‘‘What is it in this environment that makes things happenthe way they do?’’ (van Lier, 2004, p 11) Considering the interaction earlier,language is just a part of the ‘‘ambient array’’ (van Lier, 2002, p 147) ofmeaning-making affordances available to Merilinka, as Elisabeth’s linguisticutterance is supplemented with several nonlinguistic affordances

Affordances in the physical environment offer both a possibility and aconstraint for sitting down (there’s only one logical place—the bench—

to sit in the hall and this is where Elisabeth is already seated) The factthat Elisabeth turns her head and looks down at the bench is alsodirecting Merilinka’s attention to the bench, her gaze thus ‘‘acting as aguide’’ to Merilinka’s organization of attention (Olsher, 2004, p 235).Similarly, when she points towards Isac, she indicates the child’simportant role in her instruction In this way talk-in-interaction isembedded in posture, gaze, and gesture that are constitutive ofinteraction—not ‘‘added-on frills of language’’ (van Lier, 2004, p 72;also Goodwin, 2007; Kendon, 2000; Thibault, 2004)

In this case, the fact that putting on clothes is a daily routine thatMerilinka has previously observed or participated in is of course alsocontributing to affording interpretation and action In sum, it is throughthe use of affordances as meaning-making material—as action potentials(van Lier, 2004, p 62)—that Merilinka is able to act accordingly to theinstruction, despite her limited command of Swedish

The Finger Paint Episode

The following excerpt shows a triadic interaction—an interaction thatinvolves both people and objects (van Lier, 2004) The instruction tookplace in the small art room where chatting children eagerly gatheredaround a table to do finger painting on aluminium foil under theguidance of Sara, a preschool teacher The noise level was high wheneverybody wanted to start painting The somewhat stressed Sara neededhelp with giving a latecomer a piece of aluminium foil and thereforeturned to Merilinka, who had been watching Sara distribute pieces ofaluminium foil to the children

Excerpt 4 Will you help me there?

Sara [takes off a bit and gives Merilinka the roll of foil, speaks quickly]: Willyou help me there, you can just take off a bit there

Merilinka [takes the roll, takes off a bit, the size of other children’s, and gives

to the child.]

In this triadic interaction, signs are structured by and dependent on theobjects of Sara’s and Merilinka’s joint attention, that is, the roll ofaluminium foil and the shared task at hand, that is, quickly getting allthe children to start painting However, this focus also entails thepossibility of and need for an economy of speech in the hectic situation,where the task, not the learning of Swedish, is in focus Sara doesn’tneed to use an elaborate instruction (e.g., including aluminium foil, thesize of the piece or the name of the child), and Merilinka doesn’t need

to understand every word in the instruction or to reply verbally—instead,they both rely on the affordances and a shared understanding of theactivity

As in the previous situation, linguistic affordances are only ofsecondary importance as Merilinka invokes several nonlinguisticaffordances in consort to support her understanding In addition tothose mentioned before, the immediate preceding situation (i.e., onechild not having an aluminium foil piece and Sara taking off a bigaluminium foil piece) offers cues for action when she is given thealuminium foil roll

The Tractor Book Episode

In the following excerpt, also of a triadic interaction, language use isconstitutive of the activity Wilmer, who had been very sad and sobbing,wanted Merilinka to read his favourite book, the Little Book of Tractors, apicture book with limited text, naming and describing various sorts oftractors and their parts in different colours and numbers

Wilmer and Merilinka were in the reading corner, Merilinka sitting,with the book in her lap, after Senka, a preschool teacher, found thebook for them

Excerpt 5 The Little Book of Tractors

Senka: Look, Senka found it [holds up book in front of her]

Senka: Aaaah, Merilinka will read this [gives Merilinka the book]

/ ./

Merilinka [looks at Wilmer]: Is it your book?

Wilmer: yees

Merilinka: Yes, the little tractor book [opens book]

Wilmer [quickly points to picture of tractor]: hehe yeah xxx!

Merilinka: Ah, what is this? [points in circles to picture of tractor]

Your tractor?

Wilmer: [quickly] you see there’s wheel [quickly points to wheel]

Merilinka:

ah?

[points again to picture of tractor, looks at Wilmer] Is it

your tractor? [looks down into book again]

Wilmer: yees

Merilinka: yees [laughs] okay [turns to next page]

Wilmer: [points to picture, inarticulate] wha’ col’ ‘sit? [what colour is it][quickly points again]

Merilinka: yes?

Wilmer: xxx xxx

The object of Merilinka’s and the child’s joint attention—the book, itstext, and pictures—supports and structures their interaction as theyfocus on naming and commenting, that is, the indexical or deicticfunctions of language, supplemented by the affordances of pointing,gaze orientation, and eye contact

Although the picture book itself and Merilinka’s and the child’slanguage competencies only allow for a limited register, Merilinkaactively and creatively makes use of her scarce linguistic affordanceswhen she repeatedly uses phrases and questions like ‘‘Is it your book?’’

‘‘What’s this?’’ and ‘‘Your tractor?’’ Even though Merilinka most oftentakes the initiative, the child also takes turns asking questions, oftenabout things both parties already know While engaging in turn-takingbased on this type of questions and answers, they also draw on previousexperiences of participation in book-reading activities as they collabora-tively sustain and adhere to the participation framework (Goffman,1981; Kendon, 1992, 2000)

The situatedness of the interactions allowed for and contributed

to indexical language use as well as the use of nonlinguistic signs.Such signs-in-interaction should not be characterised as indications

of language limitations or as avoidance strategies Instead, theydemonstrate, as Olsher (2004) showed, the individual’s command

of semiotic signs as social action, an important aspect of anindividual’s interactional competence both in first and secondlanguages

Mentor and Fellow Worker

As agreed on in the introductory meeting, Merilinka spends almost allher time interacting with the children Interactions with her mentor andcolleagues, on the other hand, are brief, mostly concerning instructionsand almost exclusively during activities involving the children

In frequent attempts to support Merilinka’s language learning—which is the purpose of the work placement—her mentor Biljana asks,

‘‘Do you understand?’’ She seldom uses Serbian or Macedonian, and,when she does, it is mostly in hectic situations when the use of theirshared first language is considered safer and quicker, and a moreeconomic way of getting the message across

With the successful execution of the current activity in focus, theother bilingual preschool teacher, Senka, uses their shared secondlanguage, in accordance with what might be called an ecologicalapproach, as she puts Merilinka’s interactions, rather than her languageuse, at the centre of attention For example, Senka supports Merilinka inperceiving and exploiting affordances by providing her with the littletractor book in Excerpt 5, which helped Merilinka comfort Wilmer, and

by providing her with interaction-yielding and face-saving phrases such

as in the following excerpt where Senka, Merilinka, and some of thechildren were dancing and Albin didn’t want to hold Merilinka’s hand.Excerpt 6 I want to play with you

Albin [to Merilinka]: go away, go away, go away

Merilinka [looks at Senka]

Senka [to Merilinka in Serbian]: xx

Merilinka [to Albin]: why?

Albin (2)

Merilinka [looks at Senka]

Senka [to Merilinka in Serbian]: xxx xxx

Merilinka [to Albin]: I want to play with you Do you want to play with me?Albin: no [takes Merilinka’s hand]

Here, their shared first language is not used for translating or gettingthings done more quickly, but for mediating the appropriate use ofSwedish, which in turn, promotes further engagement and actions toward off the potentially face-threatening situation (Goffman, 1967).Merilinka later refers to Senka as ‘‘always helping out’’ and comments onthe situations in Excerpts 5 and 6 as ‘‘good’’ and ‘‘comfortable,’’ asopposed to other interactions with the staff in which she often feltuncomfortable or insecure

In School

According to the public tender, the integration of language learning

in and out of language school is the joint responsibility of the coach andthe teacher However, Merilinka’s coach Eric and teacher Magnus, bothfully qualified and experienced, did not feel they had any realopportunity to fulfil these obligations As they had to give priority to